the article. All this is certainly significant of ᾿
facts in Philistine history. Whether the facts thus signified are recoverable is another question.
2. Characteristics of the Philistines in the times when they are best known.—The usage attending the name is not more remarkable than are many of the facts concerning the Philistines themselves, as they appear in the OT.
Their territory extended ‘from the Stihor* which is before Egypt, even unto the border of Ekron northward’ Ae 135: 3. Its eastern limit was at Beth-shemesh (1S 618). It included pos- sibly 2000 square miles of land, much of it re- markably fertile. Within this territory there were, according to the biblical writers, in the times when the Philistines were prominent, four kinds of inhabitants. First, there were the Philistines proper. Second, there were remnants of the Anakim and the Avvim in Gaza, Gath, Ashdod, ete. (Jos 11% 138, Dt 2%). These were politically Philistine, as the Anakim at Hebron were politically Amorite. Third, the accounts of the conquest under Joshua and of the subse- quent events seem to imply that there were
anaanites living among the Philistines, some of whom were conquered and superseded by Israel (see 3 below). Fourth, some of the southern Geshurites (Jos 13, 1S 278), and perhaps other like tribes, lived within the Philistine territory, near the Egyptian border. It is noteworthy that the Philistines seem to have confined themselves to their own narrow region, even when for decade after decade they held dominion over the wider territories of Israel. It is recorded as an excep- tional fact that, after the overthrow of Saul at Gilboa, some of them became resident amon the Israelites in the regions beyond Jezreel aa Jordan (1 S 317; 1 Ch 107).
The Philistines were proficient in agriculture
* That is, either an arm of the Nile (Dillm.) or the Wady εἰ ὁ
‘Artsh, ‘ river (53) of Egypt.’
PHILISTINES
PHILISTINES - 845
(Jg 155, 1S 6, 2K 83 ete.). They were skilful in architecture, in sculpture, in the working of iron and of the precious metals, and in other arts (e.g. Jg 164°, 1 Καὶ 5. 13% 39 17% Sete.). Ata Telatively early date they seem to have had monetary usages peculiar to themselves, witness the ‘eleven hundred of silver’ (Jg 16% 18; cf. 17"). In fine, they are presented to us as re- latively a wealthy and highly civilized people. So far as appears, it was only in later times that they engaged largely in commerce and maritime pursuits.
Politically, ey had five principal centres, the cities of Ashdod, Gaza, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron (wh. see, severally, and see also 1 S 6”, Jos 1, Zeph 2*7 ete.). It has been inferred that Ashdd possessed a right of hegemony over the others; but the order of mention differs in dif- ferent places; and, judging by the history, the claim of Gath to the hegemony is much stronger than that of Ashdod. Besides the five, the Philis- tines had many other cities, the following (which see) being familiar examples: Gerar, Gezer, Timnah, Ziklag, Gob, Gibbethon, Jabneh (2 Ch 26°) ; and many of them dwelt in unwalled towns (1S 6%, Dt 2%); but the five principal centres representatively included them all (1 S 61%).
heir political organization was unique. The people of each centre are currently spoken of in the ordinary way in which other nationalities are mentioned, as ‘the Ashdodite,’ ‘ the Ashkelonite,’ etc. But the centres themselves and their political heads are alike designated by the altogether pecu- liar word 0370, sérdnim, tr. ‘lords’ in AV and RV (Jos 13°, Jg 165 ete.). This word is used only in the plural. It is doubtless the native term, and has no near cognates in the Hebrew, save thata word of the same spelling is used (1 K 7”) of some accessory to the wheels of the laver-bases of Solomon’s temple. Here the RV, following Vulg. and many lexicons, tr. by ‘axles,’ though the word is different from the one rendered ‘ axle- trees’ in the same context. Half a dozen op- posing derivations have been conjectured for sérdnim, none of them more plausible than the natural suggestion that these five cities and their chiefs were regarded as the centres or representa- tives of national power ; or that seren is the Greek τύραννος.
The séranim, ‘lords,’ are distinguished from the sdrim, ony, ‘captains’ (1 S 18” 2979, where AV and RV misleadingly translate ‘princes’ instead of ‘captains’). The former are the depositaries of national authority, and the latter the men in actual military command. In particular cases, both offices may or may not have been combined in one person. The prevailingly tr. seren by σατράπης or carparla, ‘satrap’ or ‘satrapy,’ and sar by στρατηγός, ‘captain,’ but sometimes interchange the two, and sometimes tr. sérdnim by ἄρχοντες, ‘rulers.’
The functions of the séranim were both civil and pricy σῚ We have no account of any one seren acting by himself, but only of acts in which the whole body of séranim participated. The accounts speak sometimes of the ‘armies’ and sometimes of the ‘army’ of the Philistines (1 S 23° 981 29), Apparently each of the five centres had its inde- pendent force, but all were combined, in time of war, under one command. In David’s time Gath was especially prominent, and perhaps held the hegemony (1 Ch 20°, RV of 2S 8'; cf. 1 Ch 18}), King Achish of Gath may have been the Philistine commander-in-chief, though the narrative does not explicitly say so (1S 29).