Editing Philistines (section)

=== Torah (Pentateuch) ===
The [[Torah]] does not record the Philistines as one of the nations to be displaced from Canaan. In Genesis 15:18–21,<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|15:18-21|HE}}</ref> the Philistines are absent from the ten nations [[Abraham]]'s descendants will displace as well as being absent from the list of nations [[Moses]] tells the people they will conquer, though the land in which they resided is included in the boundaries based on the locations of rivers described.<ref>{{bibleverse||Deut|7:1|HE}}, {{bibleverse-nb||Deut|20:17|HE}}</ref> In fact, the Philistines, through their Capthorite ancestors, were allowed to conquer the land from the [[Avvites]].<ref>{{Bibleverse|Deuteronomy|2:23}}</ref> However, their de-facto control over Canaan appears to have been limited. {{Bibleverse|Joshua|13:3}} states that only five cities, Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath and Ekron, were controlled by Philistine lords. Three of these cities were later overtaken by the [[Anakim]], making them a target for Israelite conquests as seen in {{Bibleverse|Judges|3:3}} and {{Bibleverse|2 Samuel|21:20}}.

God also directed the Israelites away from the Philistines upon their [[The Exodus|Exodus]] from Egypt, according to Exodus 13:17.<ref>{{bibleverse||Exodus|13:17|HE}}</ref> In Genesis 21:22–27,<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|21:22-27|HE}}</ref> [[Abraham]] agrees to a covenant of kindness with [[Abimelech]], the Philistine king, and his descendants. Abraham's son [[Isaac]] deals with the Philistine king similarly, by concluding a treaty with them in chapter 26.<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|26:28-29|HE}}</ref>

Unlike most other ethnic groups in the [[Bible]], the Philistines are almost always referred to without the [[definite article]] in the Torah.<ref name="Macalister1">{{harvnb|Macalister|1911}}: "There is a peculiarity in the designation of the Philistines in Hebrew which has often been noticed, and which must have a certain significance. In referring to a tribe or nation, the Hebrew writers as a rule either (a) personified an imaginary founder, making his name stand for the tribe supposed to derive from him—e. g. 'Israel' for the Israelites; or (b) used the tribal name in the singular, with the definite article—a usage sometimes transferred to the Authorized Version, as in such familiar phrases as 'the Canaanite was then in the land' (Gen. xii. 6); but more commonly assimilated to the English idiom which requires a plural, as in 'the iniquity of the Amorite[s] is not yet full' (Gen. xv. 16). But in referring to the Philistines, the plural of the ethnic name is always used, and as a rule, the definite article is omitted. A good example is afforded by the name of the Philistine territory above mentioned, 'ereṣ Pelištīm, literally 'the land of Philistines': contrast such an expression as 'ereṣ hak-Kena'anī, literally 'the land of the Canaanite'. A few other names, such as that of the Rephaim, are similarly constructed: and so far as the scanty monuments of Classical Hebrew permit us to judge, it may be said generally that the same usage seems to be followed when there is question of a people not conforming to the model of Semitic (or perhaps we should rather say Aramaean) tribal organization. The Canaanites, Amorites, Jebusites, and the rest, are so closely bound together by the theory of blood-kinship which even yet prevails in the Arabian deserts, that each may logically be spoken of as an individual human unit. No such polity was recognized among the pre-Semitic Rephaim, or the intruding Philistines so that they had to be referred to as an aggregate of human units. This rule, it must be admitted, does not seem to be rigidly maintained; for instance, the name of the pre-Semitic Horites might have been expected to follow the exceptional construction. But a hard-and-fast adhesion to so subtle a distinction, by all the writers who have contributed to the canon of the Hebrew scriptures and by all the scribes who have transmitted their works, is not to be expected. Even in the case of the Philistines, the rule that the definite article should be omitted is broken in eleven places. [Namely Joshua xiii. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 7, vii. 12, xiii. 20, xvii. 51, 52; 2 Sam. v. 19, xxi. 12, 17; 1 Chron. xi. 13; 2 Chron. xxi. 16]"</ref>