Philistines were not Aegeans Biblically

And it bothers me how people trying to discuss archeology from a Biblical standpoint do not realize that the popular association of the Philistines with the Aegean is a problem for The Bible.

Sometimes someone will make a video about further “proof” of the Aegean origin of the Philistines as if that is specifically Bible vindicating evidence, as if the Aegean origin of the Philistines is what one would assume going off The Bible alone, but it's not. For centuries before modern Egyptology began everyone including the Targums and Miamonides agreed that Caphtor was Damiette and/or Peleusium.  

The Aegean is Javan Biblically, right from Genesis 10 Javan is identified with “The Isles” (an idiom The Bible keeps using for the Islands of the Greek world) more so than Inland Greece. I know some people have it in their heads that Greece didn't become Japhethite until the Indo-European Proto-Hellenic speakers arrived between 2200 and 1900 BC.  I believe the Indo-Europeans are from Japheth but not the only people from Japheth, I believe the Proto-Indo-Europeans of the Yamnaya Culture were Gomer, maybe even just one of Gomer's three sons, and other sons of Japheth become associated with them only after their migrations to other regions and intermingling with other peoples. I believe the Minoans are Javan, maybe even just one son of Javan (perhaps Kittim) but I’m undecided on that.

Others are seeking to prove this Aegean presence in this region goes back to the Middle Bronze Age and wasn’t something brand new during or following the Bronze Age Collapse as if the when of the Philistines origins is the only problem for The Biblical picture not the where.  

Philistine is an Exonym not an Endonym, we don’t know what they called themselves, every use of the term in the Bronze or Iron Age comes from their enemies. It seems to be a term that means foreigners or invaders or migrants derived from a Semitic verb meaning “to roll off”. So I”m not saying these Aegeans the Archaeologists are focusing on were never included in who The Bible calls Philistines.  

But the few times The Bible is specific about where the Philistines came from, it is always identifying them as coming from one or two of the seven nations of Mizraim from Genesis 10:13-14, the first time it does this is in Genesis 10:13-14 but translations disagree on which son. So it is a perceived problem for KJV Onlists that Deuteronomy 2:23, Jeremiah 47:4 and Amos 9:7 all seem to support it being Caphtor. In the Peshita reading of Genesis 10 the Casluhim and Philistim both come from the Caphtorim.

Now some may argue “It’s clearly not only Egypt coming from Mizraim so what’s the big deal?” The issue is Genesis 10 is clear that languages are the key factor in how early national divisions happened. Caphtor can’t be Crete because neither language ever spoken as the dominant language on Crete was Afroasiatic. 

And arguing that none of this names offspring of Mizraim are part of Egypt property is debunked by the Pathrusim being the people of Pathros which is Thebes the capital of Upper Egypt. 

I'm tired of seeing history youtubers act like the debate over Caphtor is settled when it is far from settled even in mainstream Academia. First of all, even if Keftu and Capthor should be identified with each other is disputed. Meanwhile the identification of Keftu as an Aegean island was largely popularized by Jean Vercoutter and his interpretation of one reference to Keftu in the tome of Rekkmire an official from the 18th Dynasty. But in 2003 Claude Vandersleyen pointed out that the term Wadj which Vercoutter had translated “The Sea” actually refers specifically to the Vegetation of the upper Nile Delta, where The Nile meets the Mediterranean not the Mediterranean itself.

In the Tomb of Menkkeperreseneb the Kefitu are included in what Retjenu refers to. 

The word for “country” in Jeremiah 47:4 is usually translated as Island, but ancient languages used that word more loosely than us in many ways, many parts of the Nile Delta were absolutely considered Islands especially along the Mediterranean Coast. 

The term Cherethite is just a term for mercenary that has a perfectly explained Hebrew etymology. The overstated phonetic similarity to Crete people keep seeing is a coincidence. Its Strong number is 3774 the verb it comes from is 3772. Three verses do seem to be using it as an ethnonym and alongside references to the Philistines, 1 Samuel 30:14, Ezekiel 25:16 and Zephaniah 2:5. Those passages could be referring to distinct peoples that were sometimes neighbors. 

The misnomer that the Philistines were Sea Peoples is entirely based on taking Ramses III’s record of the battle he fought in 1177 BC at Medinet Habu and Pyapyrus Harris I and treating all of Egypt's enemies in that account as Sea Peoples, but the the actual records are more specific then that, he identifies only the Teresh, Sherden and Weshesh as “of the Sea” and places the Denyen “in their Isles”. But the Peleset and Tjekker are given no such maritime association. We know from other records that the Tjekker were the Canaanites of Dor, so the Philistines can also be presumed to be already present in this region. (The ones who are called Sea Peoples may also be native to the Levant and just the ones who had Sea Farring capabilities.)

The term Sea People is taken from Egyptian records of Rameses II, Merneptah and Rameses III, the theory that those Sea People have anything to do with the “Bronze Age Collapse” that happened in Greece and Anatolia has never actually been a proven theory, people just like running with it. Even that there was a dramatic “Bronze Age Collapse” is disputable. There is an argument I saw from a Marxist whose username I don’t remember that the violence occurring in Greece and Anatolia at this time was Class Based Revolutions not foreign invaders.

Papyrus Harris I has already talked about the “foreigners” Ramses III’s predecessor had expelled from Egypt, the entire Irsu narrative. It is possible the Peleset are in part those Egyptian Exiles. 

Gaza, archeologically Tel es-Sakan, was first built as an Egyptian fort back in the Old Kingdom, and served as the main outpost of Egyptian Military presence in the Levant all through the 18th and 19th Dynasties. So archeology does confirm Egyptian origins for those called Philistines if people just stop being distracted by the Sea Peoples fixation. Ashkelon has a complicated history with Egypt Archeologically. 

Gerar is never specifically a City in Genesis, it refers to the entire Nahal Gerear valley, except Biblically I think it’s all of what we today call the Wadi Ghazzah. Genesis 21 mentions the Philistines only as a geographical reference, it's in Genesis 26 where Philististine is a term used for people Isaac and his family interact with.

Tel-Harar the city doesn't appear till Middle Bronze IIC, so it can’t specifically be where any King in Genesis is ruling from. Tell el-Ajul is an older archaeological site in the Gerar area possibly going back to Middle Bronze I but certainly Middle Bronze IIA, in Middle Bronze IIb it has significant Egyptian 2nd Intermediate Period imports, and it’s considered a candidate for Sharuhen the last stand of the Hyksos. Tell Beit Misrim is also interesting. 

 

The Aegean elements of Philistine culture could very well be a product of cultural exchange rather than it ever being Aegeans who conquered and ruled these cities. Maybe the Philistine cities were melting pots.

But if the people I referred to above arguing for this Aegean presence going back to the Middle Bronze Age are correct. Then there is a possible Biblical identification for them, the Anakim. 

The Anakim were NOT Nephilim or Raphaim, they are called those only in verses referring to the “false report”. They are at first associated with Hebron but do seem distinct from the Canaanites of Hebron, as in Joshua 11 the Anakim are already chased out of the Hebron region but Caleb still has to deal with the Canaanites later. They aren’t there yet in Genesis, the only Anakim linked name used is Kiratharba meaning City of Arba. But the Anakim are referred to in Middle Kingdom Egyptian records.  

After the Anakim were chased out of Hebron they continued in Gaza, Gath and Ashdod, three of the Philistine cities. According to Jodhua 11:21-22.

Anax is a Homeric Greek word for King, rendered Wanax in Mykenean inscriptions. Anakim is plural of Anak because there are three Kings and sons of Anak could mean sons of prior kings. Arba is a name for Hebron which the Anakim ruled and the supposed father of Anak, but it’s also the name of a city in Achaea in the northern Peloponnese. But both Anax and Arba are theorized to be of non-Greek linguistic origin. Maybe they are Minoan?

Those connections are the core of the argument, my following proposed Greek connections for the three Numbers 13:22 Sons of Anak aren’t necessary because Greeks ruling a kingdom in Canaan may have also had local Semitic names.  But they do make interesting speculation. 

Ahiman could be a play on Achaean since the H letter in that name in the Hebrew text in Heth not Heh. Sheshai could be cognate with the first part of Sisyphus and Talmai is how the Greek name Ptolemy was rendered in Aramaic. 

In the Amarna Letters a King of Gath seems to have an Indo-Aryan name possibly via Mitanni, Swardata coming from Surya the Vedic solar deity. Anak in Sanskrit can mean blind or inferior. And Anaka is a word for a type of Drum.But in spite of that etymology as a name Anak is associated with strength and security.

Indo-Aryran etymologies could be proposed for Sheshai and Ahiman in Shesh or Sheshai and Ahriman also called Akem Manah/Aka Manah. As well as for Talmai from Talam. Abra could then be linked for a verb meaning to approach or to hurt. 

But the Greek/Minoan identification for the Anakim suits my current views more. 

“Judeo-Christian Values” is the correct term for what is often derisively called “Slave Morality”.

It’s the aspect of Christianity that the Nazis hated because they correctly identified it as Jewish in origin. While everything they sometimes like about Christianity came from the later influence of Middle Platonism and Rome.

While it’s true the original popularizer of the “Slave Morality” v “Master Morality” dichotomy chose to classily Islam as also a “Slave Morality”, even he saw the aspects of Islam that didn’t really fit that, but not classifying it that way would contradict his thesis that “Slave Morality” was inseparable from Monotheism. Many Nazis were later able to openly praise Islam as the kind of Master Morality Warrior Religion they wish Germany had instead of Christianity, chiefly Hitler and Himmler, but many other SS officers flat out converted to Islam after the War.

The core Theological distinction between Islam and the older Abrahamic Religions is The Quran’s strong opposition to seeing Allah as a Father in any sense.

And to me there is a natural psychological correlation between those things.

These values originate in Judaism but Christianity is the middle man in how they became world wide values that even many with no religion at all now share, values that even many Anime wind up sharing via indirect influence.

Debunking the term by pointing to every Jewish Value that Christians don’t share or visa versa misses the point, I don’t use the term where it doesn’t apply.

But it’s also interesting how Christians didn’t exactly only ever consult Judaism to guide their values in the 1st or 2nd Century. I recommend Eric Nelson’s Book The Hebrew Republic. 

Fascism and Nazism are Cousin Ideologies

The popular view that Nazism is just Fascism with German characteristics is definitely wrong, there were other German groups at the time who were much closer to being that, and if anything German National Socialism is older than Italian Fascism. However they do have key similarities alongside the important differences. 

Others who have put much time into distinguishing them on YouTube like TIK and TheJayLino have this issue of wanting to blame the conflation only on Mussolini and Hitler’s wartime alliance even though they know full well the conflation was already happening before the War.  They know that Arnold Leese put Fascist in the name of his group even though he despised Mussolini and was using Hitler as his model. And they might know that Marxist Philosophers were already writing theories of Fascism predicated on including the Nazis in 1934.

The core philosophical distinction is a Hitler quote about the State deriving its authority from The Nation contrasted with a Mussolini quote about the Nation being defined by The State. The other differences you can point out are arguably derivative from that. It means they can manifest in ways where what the State is doing is pretty similar, even more similar than Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were, but at their core would still be mutually exclusive ideas.

It also means that National Socialism can have a greater diversity of positions on The State, including rejecting it entirely, the Posse Comitatus ideology is basically Anarcho-Nazism. And that a Fascism can in-turn redefine what its Nation is if it wants, hence both Moseley and some surviving Italian Fascists moving to Pan-European Nationalism after the War.  Globalist Fascism is also theoretically possible, just combine the Globalist Class Collaborationist State-Socialism of H.G. Wells with Sorleianism inspired State Corporatism. But because the kind of Nationalism that Nazims is built on requires excluding someone, no you can't make a Nazism where all Human are part of the Nation.

Sometimes TheJayLino contradicts his own definition. Not in a video proper but replying to a comment he said he viewed the SSNP (Syrian Social Nationalist Party) as Fascist, but on this core distinction Antoun Saadeh was definitionally a National Socialist. He viewed the Syrian Nation as an eternal organic entity that the State derives its authority from. Combined with his intense Antisemitism he was firmly a Nazi. The SSNP backed the March 1949 Syrian Coup which was also backed by SS War Criminal Walter Rauf and the CIA.  Pierre Gemayel in contrast did indeed hold the Fascist view of The State.

TheJayLino defines Fascism as a development of Sorelian Syncialism. He considers Geroges Sorel the principal forefather of Fascism, Fascism is still not fully formed in Sorel’s own writings, but it took only a little nudging for Geroges Valois and Eduard Berth to form Fascism out of Sorel.

In that context I’d argue that Houston Steward Chamberlain is to Nazism what Gergoes Sorel is to Fascism, the gist of just about everything is there in his 1899 book Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, it too only needed one more push. He was a cited influence by Rudolf Jung, Hitler in Mein Kampf and Alfred Rosenberg the chief Philosopher of the NSDAP (their Giovani Gentile).

In-spite of their differences Chamberlain and Sorel have a few Intellectual common ancestors. 

Both openly cited Proudhon as an influence as I talked about when I discussed Proudhon being a War Monger. 

But the most important one is Thomas Carlyle. On my main blog I talked about Calryle’s Heroarchy as the grandfather of both Fascism and Nazism in the context of talking about how Heroarchy manifests in some popular entertainment media. 

Their differences perhaps partially manifest in how only Chamberlain read Carlyle directly, while for Sorel the Carlyle influence was filtered through William James, and at first even James was filtered through Henri Bergson.

Proudhon and Carlyle also have a common intellectual ancestor in Immanuel Kant, that is why one of the core things Fascism and Nazism have in common is both being Idealists. Carlyle was a more direct student of Kant while Proudhon’s Kantianism was filtered through Hegel. But I will not consider all intellectual descendants of Kant or Hegel cousins to Fascism and Nazism in any way that politically matters. Karl Marx was influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche by the most Un-Hegelian student of Kant as well as Carlyle, but both also ultimately rejected Idealism specifically criticizing Kant and Hegel and Carlyle (and Marx wrote against Proudhon). But Nietzsche remains someone Fascists and Nazis could still pull from, while Marx came to represent everything they oppose.

This means there can be other Cousins to Fascism and Nazism that are distinct from both by also descending from either Carlyle or Poroudhin if not both.  

Like Charles Maurras’s Integral Nationalism, he too cited Proudhon as an influence. He in turn influenced both the Cagulards and Rexism in Belgium. 

Post Civil War Neoconfederate ideologies tend to have Carlyle filtered through Geroge Fitzburgh and probably some indirect Proudhon with their Federalism (Proudhon did support the Confederacy in-spite of his opposition to Slavery). 

Carlyle also influenced Northerners via people like Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau and Theodore Parker and Thomas Wentworth Higgens. And elements of the later British Far Right like Lord Lymington 9th Earl of Portsmouth and Henry Hyndman.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky's thinking also has some parallels to Carlyle's. 

Fantasy writers E. R. Eddison and Robert E. Howard were avid readers of Carlyle and it shows in their writing. 

The only thing making me hesitant to count Ayn Rand and her Objectivism is that she self identified as a Materialist.

But modern Left Wing Anarchists are not true Proudhonians no matter how much they misguidedly claim to be. The French Forefather of modern Left Wing Anarchism was Joseph Dejacue.  Fascists and most Nazis are also very un Proudhonian by not being Anarchists, but again it is chiefly his view of War and Violence that I cite as influential to Fascism and Nazism.

In addition to their intellectual ideological common ancestors Fascism and Nazism developed similarities in Praxis tied to the historical context of their manifestation. Both started as Anti-Reformist Leftists who were Pro-War in 1914 and tied to that adopted Nationalism over Internationalism. And then how their not so ideologically educated foot soldiers were WW1 veterans driven by paranoid Anti-Bolshevism to join strike breaking paramilitary gangs. That’s why the American Legion liked to identify with the Fascists during the 20s, but their core mission was just defending the Roosevelt-Wilson status quo.