We have no information as to whether the office of geren was hereditary or elective or tuated in some other way, nor as to the relation between
this office and that of king. None of the Philistine kings who are mentioned reigned over all Philistia (Gn 20? 261-8, Jer 2530, Zec 9°); they were all local. We are not told whether the séranim existed from the earliest times, or whether they continued to exist after the conquest by David. But in the one instance we have of a Philistine king in relations with the séranim, the instance of Achish (1 S 28. 29), the king is compelled to submit to the séranim. Achish may himself have been seren of Gath, as well as king of Gath.
The religion of the Philistines was in some respects unique (see DAGON and BAAL-ZEBUB). They were a very religious people. Their priests and diviners (1S 6%) had great influence. Their cloud-observing (?) soothsayers (Is 25) were famous. Their being an uncircumcised people is much emphasized in the biblical records (Jg 145 15, 1S 148 1738. 86 314, 2S 1%, Jer 9-28),
They were distinguished especially for military rowess. Pretty full details of their system might Θ ‘Fathered from various parts of the Bible, in-
cluding mention of their archers, their equipment for heavy armed infantry, their organization into hundreds and thousands, ete. (1S 31%, 1 Ch 103, 1 5. 295). The accounts make the impression that they usually fought as infantry, though chariots and cavalry are mentioned (1S 13°, 2S 18, and perhaps Jg 1). We have descriptions of their savage treatment of the bodies of their fallen enemies (1 § 31, 1 Ch 10), and of the honours with which their women welcomed their warriors re- turning from victory. But more significant than all matters of detail is the fact that this little nation, with its few hundred square miles of terri- tory, was able again and again to conquer Israel, and to hold Israel in subjection for generations.
In their military operations they seem to have pursued a very definite policy. In the earlier stages of any movement of conquest they prac- tised effective and systematic pillage, as, for instance, in the case of Keilah (1 ὃ. 5931), or earlier, after their first great defeat of Saul (1 S 1317-18), The indications are, however, that the Israelites increased in pariaeon and wealth during the long periods of Philistine oppression, provided they were submissive. I’rom this we may infer that it was the policy of the conquerors, whenever resist- ance ceased, to abstain from pillage, doubtless exacting tribute instead, and finding it for their own interest to have the tributary people as pros- perous as possible.
To secure submission, the Philistines practised the disarmament of the subjected people. We have an instance in the time of Saul (15 13'**3), and what seems to be an allusion to an earlier instance of the time of Shamgar (Jg 351 δ8). According to the LXX in the first of these passages, the Philis- tines used this as a method of exacting tribute, suppressing the working of metals in Israel, and then compelling the Israelites to pay an exorbitant price for their tools.
It was the Philistine policy to prevent the exist- ence of a united Israel. As long as David is king of Judah, and has a rival king farther north, they seem to be content. When Israel is divided, the Philistine oe here is not imperilled. But when it is ri that David reign over all the twelve tribes, the Philistine armies march at once (2S 5). A similar situation had arisen previously, when Samuel became judge (1 8 7’).
Presumably, the ‘Philistines did not achieve all their successes single-handed. It is a familiar fact that in cases of Egyptian inyasion, in earlier times, or, later, of Assyrian invasion, it was the custom of the multitudinous little peoples between the Euphrates and the Mediterranean to band to- gether against the common foe. Judging by the
846 PHILISTINES
numbers of the Israelites, as mentioned in the Hexateuch, the invasion under Joshua was suffi- ciently formidable to call for similar confederations of the threatened peoples. As a matter of fact, the Bible represents the resistance made to Joshua and, later, to David as being of this character. We shall presently find evidence that in some of the wars of subjugation the Philistine success was due in to the ability to array many allies against Israel. ε 3. The History of the Philistines.—Beyond dis- pute, they were immigrants into Palestine. The
sages presently to be cited affirm this explicitly. t has been thought to be implied in the etymolo of the Hebrew name Pélishtim as well as of the Greek ᾿Αλλόφυλοι. So far, the problem is easy. But the questions whence they migrated, and when and how the migrating stock was modi- fied in its new seats, are questions not so readily answered.
The Philistine language was probably Semitic, although the data whence this conclusion is drawn are restricted. So were certain important elements in their religion and their civilization. This proves either that the Philistines were originally Semitic, or that they changed their language, and to some extent their institutions, under the influence of the Semitic region to which they came.
We are told that they came from Caphtor, as Israel from Egypt, or Aram from Kir (Am 9’, Dt 2*); that they were Caphtorim (Dt 2%). They are called ‘the remnant of the coast of Caphtor’ {Jer 4755. The Caphtorim are said to be one of the seven nationalities begotten by Mizraim (Egypt), and the Philistines are said to have ‘come out’ from the locality where one or more of the other six were (Gn 10"), The text has the adverb of place ‘from where,’ not the pronoun ‘from whom,’ and the two expressions are not in Hebrew convertible. It is not said that the Philistines are descendants of the Casluhim and the others, and there is no need to transpose the clauses or otherwise sean the text (but see Dillm. ad loc.). The net result from this part of the testimony is that the nucleus of the Philistine people consisted of Caphtorim, who migrated, within known historic times, from regions in- habited by Caphtorim and kindred peoples.