Philistim (Josephus ^vKkttivuq), who, according to Josephus, suggested to the Greeks the name of Pales- tine. We here advert to the various readings of the Hebrew text suggested by jMichaelis {Spicilerj. p. 278), who, after Eashi and Masius, would transpose the sen- tence thus: 'b'B Dt'73 ^x:j;;i nrx 33-rxi cstni,
that is, "And Cashiliim, and Cajithorim (oiit of whom came Philistim"). Tliis transpusitinn makes Cajihtorim the origin of tlie Pliilistincs, according to Amos ix, 7, and perhaps Deut. ii, 23 ; Jer. xlvii, 4. Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, and Bohlen assent to this change, but there is no authority for it either in MSS., Targums, or Ver- sions ; and another rendering of the passage, " Out of whom came Philistim and Caphtorim," is equally with- out foimdation. In the Hebrew text, as well as the Targums and the iie]it., Philistim alone appears as a sub- ject, all the other proper names (including the last, Caphtoi-im) have the objective sign TN, ri^, and rovg. This is decisive. See Philistines.
7. Cajithorim (Josephus Xt(p56QipoQ hy Onkelos is rendered "iXi^OilQp, " Cappadodans ,•" in the Peshito also " Cappadodans." So the other Targums, and (ac- cording to Calmct) " veteres omnes ac recentiores stant pro Cappadocibus." See Caphthor. In sujiport of the opinion advanced conceriung the Caphthorim in this article, it may be obsen-ed that in the Jlishna (Cethu- hoth [Surenh.], iii, 103), the very word of the Targum, X'^p::lSp, Cappadoda, repeatedly occurs; and (what escaped the notice of Bochart) Jlaimonides, an excellent authority in Egj'ptian topography, and Bartenora, both in their notes exjilain this Caphutkaja to be Caphtor, and identif>^ it with Damietta, in the north of Egj^jt, iii the immediate vicinity of that Casiotis where we placed the primitive Casluhim. It may be added, as some support to our own opinion,. that Benjamin of Tudela says (Asher, p. 158; ed. Bohn, p. 121, 123), "Damietta is Caphtor in Scrijiture."
III. Phut (Josephus ^ovTr]Q), the third son of Ham, is thus noticed by Josephus (.4 nt. i, 6, 2) : " Phut was the founder of Libya ; he called the inhabitants Phut- itcs, after himself; there is a river in the country of the JMoors which bears that name; whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiograph- ers mention that river and the adjoining country- by the appellation of Phut; but its present name has been given it from one of the sons of JMizraim, who was called Libys [the progenitor of the L(hahim].'" Jerome of course adopts this v^e^^•, which has also been endorsed by Bo- chart, Michaelis, Eosenmiiller. Gesenius, Bohieu, De-
HAM
40
UMl
litzsch, Keil, and Kalisch. The versions corroborate it also, for in Jer. xlvi, 9 [Sept. xxvi, 9], 'JSlSS {Phut) is rendered "Libyans" in the A.V., Libt/es in the Yulg., and Alfivii: in the Sept. SimUarly the K^lS of Ezek. XXX, .'), is " Libya" in the A. V., Libi/es in the Yulg., and Ailivif ill the Sept. (so xxxviii, 5). Like some of their kindred races, the children of Phut are celebrated in the Scriptures "as a warhke,' well-armed tribe, sought as allies, and dreaded as enemies" (Kalisch). Phut means a h)if ; and the nation seems to have been skilled in archerv. according to the statements of the Bible. We may add, in confirmation of tlie"i>reccding view of the locality of Phut, that the Coptic name of Libya, nearest to Egypt, was Phaiat. The sujiposition of Hitzig that Phut was Uoi'Tta, west of Libya, on the north coast of ^Vfrica, and of KaUsch that it' might have been Buto, the capital of the Delta, on the south shore of the Butic lake, arc luiUkely to find much acceptance by the side of t)ie universal choice of all the chief ^\Titers, which we have indicated above. (Pliny, Hist. Nat. v, 1, has mentioned the river, referred to by Josephus, as the Fut [or Phnlhl, and Ptolemy, in like manner, as the ^SiovS;, iv, 1, 3; comp. MichaeUs, Spinleg. i, IGO.) It must be admitted that Josephus and those who have followed him are vague in their identification. Libya was of vast extent ; as, however, it extended to the I^gyptian frontier, it will, perhajjS, best fulfil all the conditions of the case, keeping in view the military connection which seems to have existed between Phut and Egypt, if we deposit the posterity of Phut in P^astem Libya contigu- ous to Egypt, not pressing too exactly the statement of Jose|)hus, who probably meant no more, by his reference to the conntry of the Jloors and the river Phut, than the reailily allowed fact that in the vast and unexplored regions of Africa might be found traces, in certain local names, of this ancient son of Ham. The only objection to this extent of Libya is that this ])art of the country has already been assigned to the Ldtdhim (see above). To us, however, it seems suiHcicnt to ol)viate tliis diffi- culty to hold that while the Lchaljim impinged on the border of Upper Egypt, the children of Phut were con- tiguous to Lower Egypt, and extended westward along the north coast of Africa, and into the very interior of the continent. J'hiit was no doubt of much greater ex- tent than the I^haljim, who were only a branch of JNIiz- raim; for it will be observed that in the case of Phut, unlike liis brothers, he is mentioned alone without chil- dren. Their settlements are included in the general name of tlieir father Phut, without the subdivisions into which the districts colonized l)y his brothers' children were arranged. The designation, therefore, of Phut is generic; of Ludim, Lchabim, etc., specific, and in terri- tory limited.