Page:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu/425

 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 ). 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 ) 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 On the history of the district see further ; ; .

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 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 ). 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, § 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 ), 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 ) 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.