In several verses in the books of Genesis, Exodus, and sometimes Joshua, it is charged that references to the Philistines are anachronistic. The typical charge is that these references occur several hundred years before the Philistines were in Palestine.

An immediate observation can be made. The Philistines were Israel's traditional enemies, well-known in the time when critics think that Genesis, Exodus, and Joshua were written; yet in Genesis they are depicted as friendly to Israel's founding patriarch. Nahum Sarna observes: "No later Israelite writer could possibly be so ignorant of the elementary facts of the history of his people as to perpetuate such a series of blunders, and to no purpose whatsoever." It would be akin to someone reporting that Nazi Germany was our friend in the 1940s. Why depict a sworn enemy as being kind to your race's founder -- indeed, why make it look like he is the one who made a fool of himself in front of them?

If this is somehow an error of anachronism, then it is a very strange one. Victor Hamilton notes the following differences between the Philistines of Genesis and those from Judges and beyond:

1. The Philistines in Judges and beyond are bellicose and hostile. The Philistines in Genesis are mild and friendly.
2. The Philistines in Judges and beyond live in a five-city confederation under "lords." The Philistines in Genesis are in one city and live under a king.

In other words, it appears that the name "Philistines" is the only thing that was "erroneously" transported back in time. The rest of what we read is nothing like the Philistines that the alleged creator of the error would have known. So what is the answer here? A couple of proposals can be made.

The first proposal is that this is a case of a later copyist using a term familiar to readers then present to replace what became an anachronistic term. The Philistines may have been known by a different name at this time, and the Genesis author was using a newer term. Perhaps, the peoples in Genesis may have been previous inhabitants of Gerar who were absorbed by the Philistines.

The second proposal is that "Philistines" was a generic term used by the Hebrews to describe the "Sea Peoples" of whom the Philistines were a part. They became so preeminently the Western and then all-Palestinian enemy of Israel that they subsumed in the biblical recollection all other Sea Peoples, and perhaps other coastal enemies besides, serving as an umbrella term for the rest.

The third proposal is that these were members of an early, minor wave of settlers from the Aegean who corresponded to who would later be the Philistines. There is ample archaeological evidence of Aegean contact with the Levant as early as the third millennium BC. What we would find here, then, are peoples who would become the Philistines in later years: immigrants from the same place or area, and therefore, in the Israelite view, deserving of the same name.

Not two this time, but three: Gen. 12:10-20, 20:1-18, and 26:1-11. These narratives, each detailing a man protecting his wife by calling her his sister, are frequently cited by JEDP theorists. The assignment of Gen. 20 to E and the other two stories to J highlights an inconsistency among some critical approaches, as they admit a doublet within the same author or else posit a series of 'J' sources to retain the theory.

The similarity of these stories, far from being proof of someone weaving together different sources, actually proves no such thing in the context of ancient literature. The use of repetition was par for the course in these contexts, and there is no reason why a single author cannot have been responsible for all three stories. One may as well posit varying authorship for the three accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts, yet Christianity broadly recognizes a single author for Acts without suggesting that Luke merely pieced together disparate historical-traditional sources.

Beyond that, there are certain discernible patterns explained far better by the premise of a single author than by a redactor(s) piecing together once-separate works. Garrett notes within the triad "a pattern in which a narrative element is consistently present in two out of the three accounts".

Many writers attempt to break up the stories in terms of motifs -- this we can certainly accept, especially under the reasonable assumption that being a wandering chieftain with a beautiful wife, and being forced by circumstances into more civilized areas, necessarily required some kind of 'she's-my-sister' deception in order to survive. Perhaps the reason the motifs evolved is because they reflected a hard reality.

Practically speaking, Hoffmeier argues convincingly that a sort of "diplomatic marriage" custom lies behind all three stories: In order to gain the protection of the king, along with water and grazing rights, the patriarchs, having no daughters to present for such an exchange, resorted to the ruse with their wives. The threat was not therefore originally from the kings themselves, but from outside forces that the patriarchs sought protection from. This historical context effectively addresses critical objections, as many arguments regarding these narratives assume that the ruler was the main source of threat.

Other than that, one author can be as easily responsible for a progression of messages (transmitted through subtle variations in the successive stories) as two or more. One might observe a similar dynamic in discussions of the Q/Markan priority hypothesis: a literary hypothesis can sometimes serve as a flexible framework used to support predetermined conclusions.

Some scholars have specific reasons for supposing multiple authors; for instance, Speiser suggested that Abraham would certainly have learned from his first mistake with Pharaoh and not repeated it with Abimelech. However, assuming that a person never makes the same mistake twice contradicts common human experience. Furthermore, under the "diplomatic marriage" paradigm, we aren't really dealing with a "mistake" in the first place but a stratagem.

There is also the question of the appearance of Abimelech in both Gen. 20 and 26, which is taken to prove two different authors; but the explanation that this either involves a dynastic name, or else that this is the same Abimelech much older (Is there a clue of progress in his title changes from "king of Gerar" to "king of the Philistines"? Is there some sign of Abimelech as an old man in Gen. 26 in his habit of being a peeping tom?), are more than sufficient.

A minor objection asks where Jacob and Esau were in Gen. 26, as they would be at least 16 at the time and a dead giveaway to Isaac's status as a married man; this is easily resolved, for in Isaac's large party of relatives and servants there would be more than enough options for passing the twins off as someone else's (or as from another marriage).

Another objection, usually unrelated to JEDP issues, asks how a woman of 90 could be so beautiful as to be desired by the kings. Jewish tradition responded, quite sensibly, that the promise to Abraham and Sarah was fulfilled in process by reversing the aging process and making them young again -- which is indicated in the writer's hints that Sarah was beautiful at age 90, a puzzle they expect us to figure out.

Furthermore, from a historical perspective: The Nuzi tablets, contemporary with Abraham, show that among the Hurrians marriage bonds were most solemn, and the wife had legally, although not necessarily through ties of blood, the simultaneous status of sister, so that the term "sister" and "wife" could be interchangeable in an official use under certain circumstances. Thus in resorting to the wife-sister relationship, both Abraham and Isaac were availing themselves of the strongest safeguards the law, as it existed then, could afford them.

The Bible declares that long before King David fought the Philistine giant named Goliath in the valley of Elah (1 Samuel 17), Abraham and Isaac had occasional contact with a people known as the Philistines. In fact, seven of the eight times that the Philistines are mentioned in Genesis, they are discussed in connection with either Abraham’s visit with Abimelech, king of the Philistines (21:32,34), or with Isaac’s visit to the same city (Gerar) a few years later (26:1,8,14-15,18). For some time now, critics of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch have considered the mention of the Philistines—so early in human history—to be anachronistic (i.e., details from a later age inappropriately inserted into the patriarchal account). Supposedly, “Philistines…did not come into Palestine until after the time of Moses” (Gottwald, 1959, p. 104), and any mention of them before that time represents “an historical inaccuracy” (Frank, 1964, p. 323). Thus, as Millar Burrows concluded, the mention of Philistines in Genesis may be considered “a convenient and harmless anachronism,” which “is undoubtedly a mistake” (1941, p. 277).

As with most allegations brought against the Scriptures, those who claim that the Philistine nation was not around in Abraham’s day are basing their conclusion on at least one unprovable assumption—namely, that the Philistines living in the days of the patriarchs were a great nation, similar to the one living during the time of the United Kingdom. The evidence suggests, however, that this assumption simply is wrong. The Bible does not present the Philistines of Abraham’s day as the same mighty Philistine nation that would arise hundreds of years later. Abimelech, the king of Gerar, is portrayed as being intimidated by Abraham (cf. Genesis 21:25). Surely, had the Philistine people been a great nation in the time of the patriarchs, they would not have been afraid of one man (Abraham) and a few hundred servants (cf. Genesis 14:14). Furthermore, of the five great Philistine city-states that were so prominent throughout the period of the Judges and the United Kingdom (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza—Joshua 13:3; 1 Samuel 6:17), none was mentioned. Rather, only a small village known as Gerar was named. To assume that the Bible presents the entire civilization of the Philistines as being present during Abraham’s day is to err. In reality, one only reads of a small Philistine kingdom.

The word “Philistine” was a rather generic term meaning “sea people.” No doubt, some of the Aegean Sea people made their way to Palestine long before a later migration took place—a migration that was considerably larger. In commenting on these Philistines, Larry Richards observed:

> While there is general agreement that massive settlement of the coast of Canaan by sea peoples from Crete took place around 1200 B.C., there is no reason to suppose Philistine settlements did not exist long before this time. In Abram’s time as in the time of Moses a variety of peoples had settled in Canaan, including Hittites from the far north. Certainly the seagoing peoples who traded the Mediterranean had established colonies along the shores of the entire basin for centuries prior to Abraham’s time. There is no reason to suppose that Philistines, whose forefathers came from Crete, were not among them (1993, p. 40).

No archaeological evidence exists that denies various groups of “sea people” were in Canaan long before the arrival of the main body in the early twelfth century B.C. (see Unger, 1954, p. 91; Archer, 1964, p. 266; Harrison, 1963, p. 32). To assume that not a single group of Philistines lived in Palestine during the time of Abraham because archaeology has not documented them until about 1190 B.C. is to argue from negative evidence and is without substantial weight. In response to those who would deny the Philistines’ existence based upon their silence in the archeological world before this time, professor Kitchen stated: “Inscriptionally, we know so little about the Aegean peoples as compared with those of the rest of the Ancient Near East in the second millennium B.C., that it is premature to deny outright the possible existence of Philistines in the Aegean area before 1200 B.C.” (1966, p. 80n). Likely, successive waves of sea peoples from the Aegean Sea migrated to Canaan, even as early as Abraham’s time, and continued coming until the massive movement in the twelfth century B.C. (Archer, 1970, p. 18).

Although critics accuse biblical writers of revealing erroneous information, their claims continue to evaporate with the passing of time and the compilation of evidence.