The Philistines were a people we read about in the Old Testament. Many scholars agree that they were in the region of Palestine at least by the 1100s B.C. because of the Medinet Habu inscription of Rameses III. They are referenced in the biblical book of Joshua, Israel is at war with them when Samson comes into the picture, and David later slays the Philistine champion Goliath. However, the most controversial references we find about the Philistines in the Bible are in the book of Genesis, where it is said that Abraham and Isaac come into contact with them. This is a controversial assertion because most scholars don’t believe they came into the land until much later.
The passages in question are Genesis 20-21 and Genesis 26. They provide us references to Abimelech who is said to be the king of the Philistines. There is debate over what these passages mean. Are they saying that the Philistines were in the land much earlier than scholars know from other sources? Is the author making up that the Philistines were there because he didn’t know they weren’t in the land at the time Abraham supposedly lived? Was the author simply using the term Philistines to refer to the people of the land the Caphtorites (a people called Philistines in later writing) would soon after conquer?
Bryant G. Wood PhD, in his article “The Genesis Philistines,” points to research which he believes suggests that the Philistines were simply in the land much earlier than many scholars currently believe, and that Abraham truly meets the king of the Philistine people. This is one possible way of reconciling the supposed discrepancy.
The secular person prefers to say that the writer of Genesis was either ignorant or lying. While there is room for all kinds of theories in secular scholarship, the one that seemingly can’t be true is that the Bible is accurate. However, until we have examined other reasonable perspectives, there is no reason to jump to this view.
A middle view, and one which I find to be reasonable, is that the author of Genesis was referring to the people which the Philistines would later conquer and integrate into, as Philistines.
The Bible offers a vague storyline about the origin of the Philistines:
“And the Avim, who dwelt in villages as far as Gaza– the Caphtorim, who came from Caphtor, destroyed them and dwelt in their place” (Deuteronomy 2:23, NKJV).
Amos 9:7 refers to the Philistines coming out from Caphtor, thus closely identifying the two as does Jeremiah 47:4, so there is clear support for the Caphtorim being the Philistines. What about the Avim? Chullin 60b (from the Mishnah, Order Kodashim) offers an opinion that the Avim are the so-called Philistines at the time of Abraham and Isaac, where as the Caphtorim which take their place are those who are called Philistines later. The previous verses in the Deuteronomy passage seem to indicate that the Caphtorim took over the land sometime after Esau, one of Isaac’s sons, had grown into a tribe. This might lend support to the idea that the Avim were the “Philistines” which Abraham and Isaac dealt with.
While this solution to the problem might be viewed as opening the Bible up to skepticism, this would only be so if one held a very rigid view of inerrancy. For instance, while it would be technically inaccurate to refer to Asian peoples settling “the Americas,” since they were not called the Americas at the time, my listeners would know right away what land I was referring to. Because my desire is to communicate a story to my audience, and not to be rigidly and pointlessly time-accurate, I would be far more likely to use this term than the terms which might have been used at the time of the original settlement. For this reason, it does not destroy the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture if Moses (or a later editor) was simply using a modern term for the land he was referring to. This is an acceptable option and one which would not be difficult to support in dealing with a secular person who favors the current archaeological opinion.
4 thoughts on “Is the Bible Wrong About the Philistines?”
The Books of Moses are quite careful to refer to lands whose original inhabitants were supplanted by invaders. Examples are Emims, Zamzumims, etc. who were replaced by Ammonites, Edomites, etc.
For this reason I believe the reference to the Philistines at the time of Abraham meant they had settled the region of Canaan prior to that time.
Therefore I do not belive Philistine was used in an anachronous sense in Genesis.
The word Philistine means “Invader” or “Intruder”
in Hebrew. A similar use would be “Barbarian”
by the Romans, a general term for a number of peoples.
Here we use the word “Indian” with no regard
for the dozens of proud, individual nations
that once lived on this continent.
If you weren’t a Canaanite or Israelite living in the land you were a Philistine.
you were a Philistine
You state, “encourage non-believers to think about what they believe”, a proper analogy, we would like to discuss what non smokers smoke !
Good point. And since knowledge is defined as a true BELIEF which is warranted, and atheists don’t have beliefs, atheists don’t know anything. :-p