Talk:Philistia

Critique

The article on Philistia is a very short but sweet article. The information presented has no bias for one viewpoint or another, it presents just the facts. The first two cited sources are extremely close to, if not exact quotes from their sources. They need to be revised and paraphrased as to not be considered plagiarism. Egarcia36 (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It may have been sweet in 2016, but now it's a farce. "Umomium" in the map: no such place. The map-maker is mocking Wikipedia. The bizarre replacement of four normative city names—"normative" meaning they are used in the corresponding Wikipedia articles—by names pretending to be from some presumably authenticating language not otherwise specified in the article: Hazat (Gaza)—this links to Gaza (the established Wikipedia name), Isqaluna (Ascalon)—his links to Ascalon (the established Wikipedia name), Asdudu (Ashdod)—this links to Ashdod (the established Wikipedia name), Amqarruna (Ekron)—links to Ekron (the established Wikipedia name). Hāzat turns out to be a name from the Neo-Assyrian period only; a historical period when there were only four cities; yet this part of the article is written as if the Neo-Assyrian period is the defining moment of the "pentapolis". Note that the "authentic" name Hazat lacks the authenticating long vowel (ā). Sorry, other than as a goofy conspiracy to re-establish the Neo-Assyrian Empire, or fetishizing the re-direction function, I don't see the logic of this.Vagabond nanoda (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Diacritic markers aren't usually used in basic transliterations. It's pretty usual to mention old place names and then place the modern-day name in brackets, but if you'd rather have the links on the names in brackets, feel free to enact that. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

not helpful you are so annoying 31.51.15.231 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Five Lords

@Doug Weller: I noticed your edit comment on the Five Lords. The geographical region considered by archaeologists to represent "Philistia" is defined by the geography of the "Five Lords of the Philistines". Archaeologists have worked to identify a geographical picture of the biblical narrative - the bible leads and the archaeologists follow. The name "Philistia" or similar has never been found in the area, and the cultural archaeology shows a diffuse spectrum with no clear boundaries. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:I suggest you read the sources I gave, especially the pdf and see if you can improve the article. I take your point, but both of my sources broadly agree on the area. It's fine to mention the Five Lords but seriously confusing the way it was done. And I still think it's interesting that they don't mention "Five Lords". Doug Weller talk 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: the pdf does reference the five lords as "Sarnei Plishtim" on p.16. What it doesn't do is directly remind readers where the geographical definition it describes on p.15 ("Three of the major Philistine cities, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Gaza... with the other two cities – Tel Miqne-Ekron and Tell es-Safi/ Gath") actually comes from. The answer is the Five Lords. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

More accurately, this is the Phillistine Pentapolis. Five cities, not five lords. Dimadick (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: the Bible doesn't refer to a pentapolis; only the Five Lords. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Try reading the Bible first. Pentapolis is repeatedly used in the Septuagint. See here for an example: https://en.katabiblon.com/us/index.php?text=LXX&book=Wsd&ch=10&lemma=βοηθέω&diacritics=off Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Dimadick: condescension is unhelpful here.

The Book of Wisdom is not part of the LXX; it was written at least a century after. Wisdom 10:6 is also unclear as to which five cities and who it is referring to. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

"The Book of Wisdom is not part of the LXX" Re-read the article on the Book of Wisdom: "It is one of the seven Sapiential or wisdom books included within the Septuagint, along with Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Song of Solomon), Job, and Sirach, and is included in the canon of Deuterocanonical books by the Roman Catholic Church and the anagignoskomena (Gr. ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα, meaning "those which are to be read") of the Eastern Orthodox Church." Dimadick (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You are right, but this is semantics. As our Septuagint article states "The Septuagint... is the earliest extant Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures from the original Hebrew". Yet the Book of Wisdom is not thought to have a Hebrew original. I accept though that Wisdom is in the LXX canon. This tangent has lost track of the underlying point being discussed. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

David Ben-Shlomo of the Institute of Archaeology at Ariel University does write "The term Sarnei Plishtim ... is often mentioned, possibly referring to the leaders or officers (and which may be related to the Greek word Tiranos)." He does not use the phrase "Five Lords" and only says "possibly" referring to leaders/officers. And he only uses the phrase once. I can't find it in Ehrlich's book but it's possible he uses it. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It is explained well on page 77-78 of: Ralph W. Mathisen; Danuta Shanzer (8 April 2016). Romans, Barbarians, and the Transformation of the Roman World: Cultural Interaction and the Creation of Identity in Late Antiquity. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-06168-7.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Merge

Shouldn't this article be merged with Philistines? ImTheIP (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

When do they disappear from historical record?

Essential information, and it's missing from the article. The vague hint "after the conquest of the Levant by the Neo-Assyrian Empire" doesn't solve much, as the Assyrians kept on reconquering parts of the Levant due to revolts. 10th, 9th, 8th, 7th century or even later? Arminden (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In the 6th century according to [1]. However, "disappear" is probably an oversimplification. ImTheIP (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift reply & the source. "From historical record" was the question, and it's always "as far as we know today", that goes w/o saying. Arminden (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

It needs be pointed out that the country of the Peleset, namely Philistia, does not disappear from the record: this is why the Greeks ca. 400BC continue to refer to the region as Palestine; and it is based on these Greek sources that the Romans eventually create the southernmost province of Syria and call it Syria Palæstina. I'll add the text and refs.XavierItzm (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Names

@XavierItzm: I have removed the Herodotus quote, as it was being used to imply that the narrow coastal usage came first and the wider regional usage came second. There is no evidence for that view - you can see every single ancient usage of the term at Timeline of the name "Palestine". It is equally plausible that the Philistines (or in the LXX the "other nations" (Greek: ἀλλόφυλοι, 'allophuloi') of the region) were labelled in the bible using the wider regional name. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, what are you talking about? Nobody's making any reference to whether it is a small or large area. Feel free to qualify the text as you see fit, but is there a need to remove text which helps explain the legacy of Philistia? Here is the text you removed:

The name of the land of the Peleset remained, however. In 450 BC, Herodotus wrote of "that part of Syria, which is called Palestine (Παλαιστίνη)" This Greek version of name Philistia remains in use today.

You might notice the source directly quotes Herodotus: "that part of Syria which is called Palestine". The paper from Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research quotes this text neutrally without casting aspersions as to large, narrow, broad, etc., and it does include in in-depth look as to the changing borders of Philistia over time. XavierItzm (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem is the intent to explain the legacy of Philistia. Rainey does not do that in his article, so we should not use his article to do that, as it would be WP:SYNTH.

As an aside, Rainey’s article is not impressive. His “Fig. 1. Herodotus' description of the East Mediterranean coast” is really poor scholarship. It is well known that Herodotus never mentioned Judea (Yehud), and certainly he did not mention Samaria, Galilee and the four Transjordanian entities shown. Rainey also fails to mention two crucial points – that Herodotus appears to reference Jews as being “of Palestine” in a paragraph on circumcision, and that Aristotle a century later included the Dead Sea in Palestine.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Contradiction

The statement that "the term 'Philistia' is not used in Assyrian records describing their campaigns" is contradicted in the following sentence which cites an Assyrian record using the term.

The sentence about the "Philistia" not being used should be eliminated from the article or adjusted in some way to account for the cited presence of the term. Ccapoccia (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)