PHILISTIM (4,uXto-nv6s), who, according to Joseph., suggested to the Greeks the name of Palestine. Of this well known Hamite people we do not propose to treat ; a proper opportunity will occur in a future pa,ge [PHILISTINES]. We must, however, advert to the various readings of the He brew text suggested by M. (Spicileg. p. 278), who, after Raschi and Masius, would transpose the sen tence thus : that is, And Casluhim, anti dapthorim (out of whom came Fhilistim'). This transposition makes Caphtorim the origin of the Philistines, according to Amos ix. 7, and perhaps Deut. ii. 23 ; Jer. xlvii. 4. Ros., G., and Boh., assent to this change, but there is no authority for it either in MSS., Tar gums, or Versions : and another rendering of the passage, Out of whom came Philistim and Caph torint,' is equally without foundation. In the Hebrew text, as well as the Tar,guins and the LXX., Fhilistim alone appears as a subject, all the other proper names (including the last, Caphtorim) have the objective sign nri, rr, and roUs. This is decisive.
7. CAPTHORIM (XE06,9440s) by Onkelos is ren dered 4NpL.018r) Cappadocians ; in the Peschito 1.-1-0?0-Z-0, also Cappadocians.' So the other Targums, and (according to C.) veteres omnes ac recentiores stant pro Cappadocibus.' [CAPHTHoR.] In support of the opinion advanced concerning the Caphthorim in this article, it may be observed that in the Mishna (Cethuboth [Surenh.], to3), the very word of the Targum, N''PL.Vinp, Cappa docia, repeatedly occurs ; and (wha, escaped the notice of B.) Maimonides, an excellent authority in Egyptian topography-, and Bartenora, both in their notes explain this Cap/teak* to be Capktor, and identify it with Damietta in the north of Egypt, in the immediate vicinity of that Casiotis where we placed the primitive Casluhirn.* It may be added, as some support to our own opinion, that Benjamin of Tudela says (Asher, p. 158 ; Bohn, pp. 121, 123), Damietta is Caphtor in Scripture. When the learned editors correct their honest old author on the strength of Ros. and G.'s criticism, we demur, resting on the still greater authority of Maimom ides and Bartenora, to say nothing of Onkelos and the Arabic translator.
III. PHUT (4,0151-77s), the third son of Ham, is thus noticed by Joseph. (Antiq. i. 6. 2) ; Phut was the founder of Libya ; he called the inhabitants Phutites, after himself ; there is a river in the country of the Moors which bears that name ; whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiog-raphers mention that river and the adjoin ing country by the appellation of Phut ; but its present name has been given it from one of the sons of Mizraim, who was called Libys [the proge nitor of the Lehabind.' Jer. of course adopts this
view, which has also been endorsed by B., M., Ros., G., Boh., D., KI., and Kat. The versions corrobo rate it also, for in Jer. xlvi. 9 [Sept. xxvi. 9] DID (Phut) is rendered 'Libyans' in A. V. ; Libyes in Vulgate ; and Alf3ves in the Septuagint. Similarly the txa of Ezek. xxx. 5 is Libya in A. V ; Libyes in Vulg. ; and APves in Sept. (so xxxviii. 5).
Like some ol their kindred races, the children of Phut are celebmted in the Scriptures 'as a warlike, well-armed tribe, sought as allies, and dreaded as enemies '—(Kal.) PHUT means a bow ; and the nation seems to have been skilled in archery, ac cording to the statements of the Bible. We may add, in confirmation of the preceding view of .the locality of Phut, that the Coptic name of Libya, nearest to Egypt, was Phalat. The supposition of Hitzig that Phut was Ilo6rea, west of Libya on the north coast of Africa, and of Kal. that it might have been Buto, the capital of the Delta, on the south shore of the Butic lake, are unlikely to find much acceptance by the side of the universal choice of all the chief writers, which we have indicated above. (Pliny, Nat. Hist. v.i., has mentioned the river, referred to by Joseph., as the Fut [or Phuth], and Ptolemy, in like manner, as the (1*.atiB-, iv. I. 3 ; comp. M. Spicileg. i. 160, and Winer, Bibl. R. W. B. ii. 291). It must be admitted that Joseph. and those who have followed him are vague in their identification. Libya was of vast extent ; as, however, it extended to the Eg-yptian frontier,* it will, perhaps, 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 eastern Libya contiguous to Egypt, not pressing too exactly the statement of Joseph., who probably meant no more, by his reference to the country of the Moors, and the river Phut, than the readily 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.