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.

Maybe the Canaanites were never indigenous to Eretz Israel?

There is an interesting tension among us defenders of Modern Israel, between the Leftist desire to stress the indigeneity of Jews to Israel, and the more Conservative Religious Zionists who are not so afraid to brag about how Biblically the Ancient Israelites conquered people there before them. 

I have mostly chosen to stress when this issue comes up that whatever your moral opinion of what happened in Biblical Times, the only way anyone in the Common Era can claim descent from the Canaanites who lived in the land of Israel (the Canaanites of other Levantine countries are a different matter) is through the Canaanites who were absorbed into the population of Israel, by the time of Solomon all those Judges 1 hold outs in the Valleys were defeated. That includes any Canaanite DNA that arguably exists among the Palestinians, some of them may descend from Jews and Samaritans who converted to Christianity and/or later Islam, but for them the only claim would be Blood Quantum.  And the Philistines had no descendants left even before Alexander came and destroyed Gaza completely. 

However I recently watched a video from the YouTube channel titled Dig about Canaan and the Canaanites. They aren’t someone who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture but the facts I learned from it are still interesting. Including that when going to Early Bronze and Early-Middle Bronze Age texts, the references that would predate even the time of Abraham, Canaan as a Geographical term referred originally to mainly the area around Baalbek, Sidon was defined as to its South.

Genesis 10:19 is at face value based on how we’re used to interpreting certain names seemingly says the opposite, that Sidon was the northern limit of Canaan. But I think a more careful reading can imply something consistent with what the Dig video revealed. 

Genesis 10 is written from the standpoint of where Noah’s Family first settled after The Flood, where your approach to the regions of Lebanon and Israel would be coming from the north. So in that context “Sidon as you go to Gerar” is a southern border. 

Genesis 10:19 is the only time the name Gaza appears in Genesis, in fact the only time it appears in the Pentateuch, so in that context it being a different Gaza is not beyond the realm of possibility. Ghazzeh is a location in Lebanon along the Litani River in the Western Beqqa District, it shows up on the Wikipedia Disambiguation page for Gazza so clearly it’s considered a cognate name.  And a Gazza that you’d stop at “as you go to” Sodom and Gomorrah from the north makes way more sense as this Gaza then the one in the Gaza Strip. 

And I already talked about how Lasha is likely the same place as Leshem/Laish which would eventually be renamed Dan.  A Northern limit of Israel that’s also a Southern Limit of Canaan. 

These Canaanites were already settling in Eretz Israel by the time of Abraham. The Amorites in particular doing so as conquerors like they also conquered much of Iraq from the start of the Isin-Larsa period.  But people were there before them.

The City of Jericho is archaeologically considered to be arguably the oldest city on Earth. The destruction of its Middle Bronze IIC layer around 1580-1540 BCE is the only one that matches the description in the Book of Joshua due to details like the extensive burning. But this was neither the first or last time the city would be in some way destroyed and rebuilt. 

Et-Tell, which I talked about in my Ai post, was an Early Bronze Age city from before 3000 BCE to its destruction around 2400 BCE. There’s also Lachish, as well as Megiddo and Arad which like Jericho may even have been Cities of a sort already even before the Bronze Age. 

2400-2300 BCE seems to be a period of decline for Earl Bronze Israel, many cities were destroyed then and possibly already having their original populations replaced, partially or fully.  This could be when the Canaanites first invaded. 

So what was the Biblical Genealogy of the Pre-Canaanites of Israel?

The Southern most parts, especially where the Philistines would later live, were Egyptian Outposts during the Very Early Bronze Age. 

If you’re willing to entertain a not entirely Global Flood view then perhaps some of them, those Pre-Bronze settlements were surviving non Noahites? The local Samaritans have a tradition that Salim Nablus (which I identify with Salem of Genesis 14 and Shalem of Genesis 33 and Salim of John 3) was founded by Yered son of Mahalaleel before The Flood.  Yered had many sons and daughters, it could be while Enoch “walked with God” that his branch of the Yeredite line moved somewhere else to where the hypothetical Local Flood happened (probably the Persian Gulf region). 

However, is it possible Abraham’s Family was not actually indigenous to where their story begins in the latter part of Genesis 11? 

I agree with the view that Ur Kasdim was Urkesh, Urkesh and Harran were both cities in modern Turkey, east of the Euphrates and North-West of Assyria. Because this era is sometimes called either Padan-Aram or Aram-Nahrain some verses call Abraham an Aramean based on where he grew up, but his genealogy goes back to a brother of Aram named Arphaxad. 

Arphaxad himself does not seem to have given his name to any ancient people or region, and I consider all of Bill Cooper’s proposals for Arphaxad in After The Flood dubious. 

I remain doubtful that the Post-Flood Cainan/Kainan/Kenen was ever original to the Genesis 10 or 11 genealogies, but I do believe he’s an authentic inclusion in Luke 3 meaning someone by that name associated with the Aprhaxadite genealogy in some way did exist at the right time. It’s possible he’s the Patronym of the Kenite Tribe which produced Jethro the Father in Law of Moses a Priest in Midian (but not Midianite himself). My theory that Salah married a daughter of Cainan would then suggest there is a pattern of Kenites marrying their daughters into the line of Salah. And as the father of a Pre-Aaronite Priesthood maybe he’s also Melchizedek?

Salah may have lived in the Wadi Sallah area in the Tubas Governorate. Salah and Shelah are distinct names in Hebrew, and Shelah of Judah wouldn’t be the namesake of a place in northern Samaria. Bill Cooper couldn't consider this because he was distracted looking for the Arphaxad line only in Mesopotamia. Tel El-Farah by Wadi Sallah commonly identified with Tirzah was an Early Bronze I and II city that was then uninhabited from about 2750 BCE to 1820 BCE. 

Genesis 40:15 calls where Joseph was before he was sold into slavery (Shechem if you want to be very specific) the Land of the Hebrews. Which can justify saying this is the original land of settlement for Eber/Heber. Neither Hamor or his son Shechem are ever called Canaanites so maybe they descend patrilineally from an unnamed son of Eber. Genesis 11:17 says Eber lived after he begat Peleg and had more sons and daughters, more than one son even when excluding Peleg. 

Joktan’s sons are associated with places in Arabia, especially Yemen, but Havilah shows they may have extended pretty far north. The way that’s described suggests they may have left where they originally were. Meaning maybe Peleg stayed where Salah and Eber lived. Or maybe Peleg left the Salah area too, but Bill Cooper’s claim of a Phalgu where the Chebar and Eurphates meet I can’t independently verify, same with his claims for Reu/Ragau.

Maybe the Egyptian name for this region, Retjenu, could be related to Reu/Ragau?

Serug did live in Aram-Naharin however giving his name to the area now known as Suruc but more anciently as Serugh or Sarug. 

It could be that some of the Pelegites left Israel for Padan-Aram during or after the conquests that destroyed Et-Tell and Early Bronze incarnations of Jericho and many other cities. 

Remember that Abraham was not alone when he came to Israel from Haran, nor was it just his family and a few servants, he was able to raise an army of 318 men from his household at a time before he even had Ishmael yet. 

Salem isn’t Jerusalem

The popularly declared Melchizedek Temple in Jerusalem isn’t actually old enough to go back to the time of Abraham, there was a good un-biased analysis of it by the Armstrong Institute of all people. They mistakenly identify it with the "City of David" location of The Ark but that was a Tent. 

I had argued what I'm about to about Salem on a different blog in the past, but because I fell for the Melchizedek Temple hype I abandoned it, but now that I know that doesn’t hold up, I’m revisiting the issue again with some new information.

Genesis 14 is not the only time Salem is mentioned in Genesis, people just miss the other one because of a difference in transliteration. In the Hebrew text Shalem in Genesis 33:18 is the exact same name. 

The Genesis 33 Shalem is a City of Shechem, in fact Shechem is never a City name in Genesis but this general area, in fact using Shechem as a geographical term at all seems to be one of those anachronisms, it was named after the son of Hamor. So no Shechem wouldn't be mentioned by name in the Ebla Tablets. Since I place the time of Jacob and Joseph as Middle Bronze IIA at the latest the entire Genesis narrative predates Shechem ever becoming a major fortified city. 

Before the city named Shalem is where Jacob pitched his tent on land he bought from Hamor, the same land in which Joseph would be buried centuries later. Genesis 33:19 and Joshua 24:32.

The non Canonical book of Judith 4:4 also places Salem in the allotment of Ephraim.

Salem’s other appearance in the Hebrew Bible is Psalm 76:2. I already argued that Zion here isn’t Jerusalem but Bethlehem. The gist of my reading of the verse is the same, God’s Tabernacle and Dwelling Place “YHWH is there” being different locations is actually consistent with Ezekiel 40-48’s geography where YHWH-Shammah is in the southern third of the Holy Portion but the Tabernacle (misleadingly called a Temple in Translations) is in the exact center. 

I think the Salem/Shalem of Genesis is also Salim in John 3:23. Aenon is a Hellenized form of the Hebrew/Aramaic word for Spring, so this could be any Spring in the Nablus Governorate. There is a village today called Salim in the Nablus Governorate east of Nablus and west of Joseph’s Tomb that has ruins going back to the Early Bronze Age. Ain al-Kabira is a Spring near it. 

Both David Rohl and Immanuel Velikvosky’s Revised Chronologies involve identifying the Shalem Ramses II Miamun captures in his 8th Year Campaign as recorded at the Ramesseum with Jerusalem, for Rohl that’s making him Shishak and for Velikovsky it’s to make him Necho. But the Egyptians were already calling Jerusalem by that full name from Middle Kingdom Execration Texts to the Amarna Letters. So the Salem of Rameses must be the Salim in Nablus. 

The Mount Ebal site isn't Joshua's Altar

The biggest issue is that it’s on the northern side of the Mountain while Gerizim is to the South, and Ebal is the taller of the two mountains. Since the blessing ritual foretold in Deuteronomy 11 and 27 and fulfilled in Joshua 8 requires people to stand on both mountains facing each other, Joshua’s Altar must have been on the south side.

But also when I read Deuteronomy and Joshua I don’t picture a full structure like this site, I picture just the Stones with the Law written on them, Stones that were probably removed at some point and so are unlikely to be found by archeologists. 

This site is supported by the same Biblical Archaeology YouTube Channels that promote the 1446 BC Amenhotep II Exodus simply because they want to cling to every seemingly Bible verifying Archaeology site that isn’t seen as complete wackery like Ron Wyatt’s claims. So they ignore or explain away the fact that it is archaeologically an early Iron Age site. 

Late Exodus proponents like David Falk promote it because broadly an early Iron Age date for Joshua suits them. But since the use of this site starts in 1220 BC it’s actually too early for Falk’s model which has the conquest start in 1215 BC 40 years after the death of Ramses II’s first son, which is the earliest plausible Ramses II Exodus date. 

The fact that the animals offered here were all Levitically Clean is evidence this was an Israelite not Canaanite site, I won’t dispute that. But this wouldn’t be the only Israelite cultic site we’ve found not otherwise mentioned in Scripture, there’s also the Tel-Motza Temple and the Tel-Arad Temple. 

Arad is easy enough to expect such a thing from due to its association with the Kenites, the Pre-Aaronic Priesthood of the Father In-Law of Moses in Judges 1:16. 

But Motza is a very obscure place mentioned in The Bible only once.  I had at one point tried theorizing it was Nob using Isaiah 10 as evidence it must be very close to Jerusalem, but Isaiah 10 also seems to be intending locations north of Jerusalem, the direction from which  Assyria’s army was approaching. 

Back to the subject of this northern Ebal Altar. I at first considered Jeroboam (the theory that his calves at Bethel and Dan were like the Cherubim of a Nationwide Holy Place and so his Capital of Shechem was where Sacrifices were made), but he’s too late for 1220-1000 BC even in Ussher’s timeframe for Solomon. 

There is a certain type of Fundamentalist who thinks Josiah’s ban on making sacrifices anywhere other than The Temple must have applied all the way back to Moses because it seems at face value similar to the commands in Leviticus 17:3-4 and Deuteronomy 12:13-14 and 18. That of course would be a problem for even Joshua’s Altar still being a place of Sacrifices after The Tabernacle was set up at Shiloh. 

In the case of Deuteronomy this ignores the context of verse 12 being about the Levites in many Gates and verse 15 saying you can eat flesh in any Gates which would seem to contradict Leviticus 17 saying you only eat Animals offered in Levitical Sacrifices. The word for “One” in Deuteronomy 12:14 is Echad, the same word that says The Lord is One which Trinitarians should take note of.  Deuteronomy 12:21 clarified that these offerings can be made at other places that are far from the main place. Joshua 22:10-34 shows that the Trans-Jordan Tribes had at least one Altar of their own. 

The natural reconciliation of these issues is that sacrifices have to be made at proper Levitical locations.  Which means any of the Levitical Cities from Joshua 21 could house legitimate places for Sacrifices. Not all of them had whole structures like these built, but it seems some did and maybe more will be found some say.

Shechem (which both mountains are considered part of) is one of those cities, it could be the Shechemite place for offering was originally where Joshua’s Altar was, but some events that happened during the transition from the Late Bronze to Early Iron Age caused it to change. 1220 BC is in my preferred timescale for the very late Judges period.

Or since Shechem was also the border between Ephraim and Manasseh they may have had places for making Sacrifices both on the South of Gerizim for Ephraim and the North of Ebal for Manasseh. That could be part of why Western Manasseh has less Levitical cities in Joshua 21 then other tribes, they were also sharing Shechem with Ephraim. I assume Gerizim is less excavated than Ebal because of its sacredness to the Samaritan Community, even if no remains exist there could be any number of reasons Ebal’s Early Iron Age altar survived but Gerizim’s did not. Or maybe Ebal always had the larger full structure because it was for sharing with Manasseh. 

City names that appear only in Joshua 21 are likely known by other names elsewhere including earlier in Joshua, that’s what I’ve already argued in prior posts about Ai/Hai and Kibzaim. Since Motza/Moza appears only in Joshua 18 and Almon only in Joshua 21 the possibility that they’re the same can’t be ruled out. It’s also possible that Nob is another name for Gibeon or the part of Gibeon where the Levites lived.

The only proposed locations for Ramoth-Gilead I consider plausible are those south of the Zargo/Jabbok River, it’s in the territory of Gad not Manasseh and is the middle of the Trans-Jordan Cities of Refuge leading me to conclude it should be close to the same latitude as Shechem. It may also be the site of both the Joshua 22 Altar and Penuel. 

But also sometimes the Israelites did just do things they weren't supposed to. 

On the mostly unrelated subject of the textual variations in the references to these Mountains in Deuteronomy. The DSS fragments of Deuteronomy and the LXX agree that the Altar was on Ebal. 

To the people who argue that even independent of everything else the Samaritans are clearly inserting about Gerizim it feels wrong for the Law to be placed on the Mountain of The Curse rather then Blessing. Christians should realize that this perfectly predicts Paulian theology in Galatians 3:10-13. 

It is precisely the fact that the Law being on Gerizim in the SP fixes an apparent problem that proves it's not the original, people don't alter texts to create problems. Same with Terah's lifespan being shortened in Genesis 11. 

Stephen was probably not a Samaritan

There is a claim out there that some of the odd things Stephen says in Acts 7 can be explained by him perhaps being a Samaritan or influenced by their traditions. While I found this idea interesting at first, I quickly came to realize that the specific pillars of the claim are faulty, and it has some major counter-evidence.

Stephen is Pro-David while the Samaritan Tradition is Anti-David. The way Stephen uses Psalm 132 even implies the location of David's Tabernacle not Solomon’s Temple is the true intended location of the Mishkan, not very compatible with the Samaritan Gerizim tradition. Stephen also quotes Prophets the Samaritans don’t recognize like Isaiah and Amos. 

The Samaritan Pentateuch reflects the Samaritan Custom of saying Shehmaa (The Name) instead of Adonai (The Lord) as stand in for the Tetragrammaton. Stephen in Acts 7 is definitely following the Jewish custom here, in verses 30-37, 49 and 59-60. Saying The Name did also become a custom in Rabbinic Judaism, but it seems to have developed later, I’m aware of no example of it in the First Century CE or BCE. The New Testament certainly never does it, the word name is only ever a descriptor never used as a Name or Title for God. 

Some of the things alleged to be explained by textual differences between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Text, like saying 75 rather than 70 people went to Egypt, are just as easily explained by following the Septuagint which is what you’d expect from him being a leader in a Greek Speaking Jewish Community, but more than that so were his accusers which included Jews of Alexandria and Cyrene the specific communities most likely to be attached to the LXX. Stephen’s quote of Amos is another case of him using the LXX. 

As an enemy of LXX primacy and the popular claim that the NT consistently uses it I consider Stephen in Acts 7 the one case where the Septuagint likely is the source material being used.  I believe the overall message of Stephen’s sermon is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but since he’s not an Apostle I wouldn't treat as infallible specific details unique to him or his choice of text. 

Saying Terah died right before Abraham leaves Harran at 75 is not a conclusion you need the Samaritan Pentateuch to come to.  In fact if you aren’t stopping to do the math then it is in all versions the natural conclusion since Genesis describes Terah dying and then Abraham being called out of Harran. Now sometimes Genesis does describe things like this out of order, especially when changing which generation is now the Main Character, so this alone isn’t proof Stephen was right on this matter but it does show you can jump to this assumption no matter which text you’re using. 

The apparent contradiction caused by the math that only the SP lacks is easily resolved by remembering that Genesis 5:32 and 6:10 and 7:13 and 9:18 and 10:1 all list Noah’s sons as Shem, Ham and Japheth while the rest of Genesis 10 clearly treats Japheth as the oldest and explicitly says he is in verse 21. Sometimes the sons are named not in birth order but in an order that lists the one the overall Biblical Genealogy goes through first. So Abraham being listed first in Genesis 11:26-27 repeats that pattern, Nachor seems to be Terah’s first born since he and his descendants inherited Terah’s land in Harran. 

It’s Acts 7:16 that really seems to a casual observer very Samaritan.  Except that the Samaritan Pentateuch doesn’t actually disagree with the Masoretic text on either issue Stephen is alleged to be contradicting the Masoretic Text on. In the SP the first three Patriarchs are buried at Mamre in Kirjath-Arba aka Hebron and Jacob not Abraham bought a field near Shechem from Hamor/Emmor the father of Shechem/Sychem. We also saw in verses 8-9 that Stephen used the term Patriarch primarily of Jacob’s sons, not Jacob and his ancestors. And verse 15 explicitly distinguished the fathers who died in Egypt he’s talking about from Jacob.

Stephen is not directly saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried in Shechem, the intent to me is clearly to refer to people who died in Egypt and were at first laid to rest there until the Exodus. The actual Hebrew Bible Texts only directly refer to Joseph having his body moved and buried at Shechem on the land bought from Hamor in Joshua 24:32, but it's reasonable to infer others were with him. 

Saying Abrahm bought the field from Emmor is not quite as easy to explain. It could be it was land Abraham intended to buy but it wasn’t carried out till Jacob.  Like how Elisha fulfilled some missions first given to Elijah like anointing Jehu and Hazael. We do know that Abraham had spent time in the area of Shechem in Genesis 12:6 where he did build an Altar.

People just assumed off vibes that saying something unusual about Shechem sounds Samaritan.  I do see some people word this as about Samaritan Traditions not the SP text itself, but whether or not such a tradition exists, it’s not the only way to come to Stephen’s conclusion. The Samaritan tradition is that all of Jacob’s sons were buried at Shechem, not just Joseph, no contradiction on where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried. Stephen could be referring to that, or he could be referring to sons and grandsons of Joseph.  The only Shechem based Samaritan disagreement about events involving Abraham is wanting the location of Isaac’s offering in Genesis 22 to be Moreh rather than Moriah, that too involved no textual difference it seems just interpreting them to be the same name, and is irrelevant to anything in Acts 7.

Stephen also doesn't have to be a Samaritan to see himself as a descendent of specifically the Joseph Tribes, Ephraim and Manasseh. I do believe the Samaritans descend from Ephraim and Manasseh not the gentiles settled in the region by the Assyrians as I talked about in a prior post. But they aren’t the only descendants of Ephraim and Manasseh, those who in 2 Chronicles 30 took part in Hezekiah’s Passover I believe became citizens of Judah and thus Jews. 

Another appeal to Samaritan tradition is the idea that God first called Abraham when he was still in Ur Kassidim.  Nothing in the actual Text of Genesis contradicts such a thing, I'm sure you can find plenty of purely Jewish fan fiction depicting God already calling Abraham at Ur Kassidim.  In fact the KJV reading of Genesis 12:1 says " now YHWH had said unto" implying now isn't the first time.