PDA

View Full Version : Gen 10:14 - From whom did the Philistines originate?


jonathan.borland
12-30-2009, 06:55 AM
Perhaps John of Japan can help with this.

Most English Bibles I have checked have the Philistines proceeding from the Casluhites in Genesis 10:14. There is at least one, however, the Contemporary English Version (1995), that has them proceeding not from the Casluhites but from the Caphtorites. My original interest in this question comes from the four Chinese versions to which I have access (He He Ben, Xin Yi Ben, Xian Dai Zhong Wen Yi Ben, Lu Zhen Yi Ben), all of which have the Philistines proceeding from the Caphtorites (as in the Contemporary English Version) and not the Casluhites (as apparently in most other versions).

My basic questions are:

1. What is the text-critical problem in the Hebrew or other ancient versions, if any?

2. What is most likely the original reading, and why?

Thanks in advance.

JCB

John of Japan
12-30-2009, 08:42 AM
I appreciate your confidence in me! Don't know if I can fulfill it, but here goes.:type:

First of all, your Chinese is probably much better than mine if you can look this up in four Chinese versions! All I have is the Union, and only the NT handy (I have a complete Bible in the mainland script somewhere put away). At any rate, of the four main versions of the Japanese Bible, only the Shinkaiyaku (paid for by the Lockman Foundation, the NASB people) has Casluhites.

Concerning the textual cricitism of the verse, as I'm sure you know, OT textual criticism is seldom discussed or written about. I only have one book on it, Ellis R. Brotzman's Old Testament Textual Criticism, and it doesn't mention the verse. My Hebrew OT also doesn't mention it. (Anyone know of a cheap Hebrew OT with apparatus?)

Here's my theory about these Asian versions. If Morrison's Chinese Bible, the first, had the Caphtorites for whatever reason, the others would have followed suit. This includes the Japanese Bibles which started out following the Chinese versions in many cases. I have over and over seen the more recent Bibles here repeat the errors of the first one, the Moto Yaku, which was based partly on the Chinese.

Frankly, I would go with the results of Western scholarship on this one: the Casluhites. (Check your commentaries, including Keil & Delitzsch, who point out Caphtor in Amos 9:7 and Joshua 13:3.) Scholarship in China, Japan and most other countries in Asia is at a low level--not from a lack of intelligence of course, but from other factors. Consider that only one percent of the population in Japan claims to be Christian, and though China may have 5 to 10 percent, they have been bullied by the government for a long time, holding scholarship back. So in most of Asia, pastors only have access to a Bible school education, or at most a Bible college degree.

Grad school is out of the question in some countries, though this is changing. I was recently in another Asian country (86% Muslim) and had the privilege of talking by phone to the head of a brand new seminary there.

Thanks for an interesting question!

Forever settled in heaven
12-30-2009, 08:52 AM
does this help? verbiage from Keil-Delitzsch:

“From thence (i.e., from Casluchim, which is the name of both people and country) proceeded the Philistines.” Philistim, lxx Φυλιστιείμ or Ἀλλόφλοι, lit., emigrants or immigrants from the Ethiopic fallâsa. This is not at variance with Amo_9:7 and Jer_47:4, according to which the Philistines came from Caphtor, so that there is no necessity to transpose the relative clause after Philistim. The two statements may be reconciled on the simple supposition that the Philistian nation was primarily a Casluchian colony, which settled on the south-eastern coast line of the Mediterranean between Gaza (Gen_10:19) and Pelusium, but was afterwards strengthened by immigrants from Caphtor, and extended its territory by pressing out the Avim (Deu_2:23, cf. Jos_13:3). Caphtorim: according to the old Jewish explanation, the Cappadocians; but according to Lakemacher's opinion, which has been revived by Ewald, etc., the Cretans. This is not decisively proved, however, either by the name Cherethites, given to the Philistines in 1Sa_30:14; Zep_2:5, and Eze_25:16, or by the expression “isle of Caphtor” in Jer_47:4.

robycop3
12-30-2009, 09:04 AM
Scholars disagree greatly about the origin of the Philistines. Rameses III, who was Pharaoh during the time of Joshua, descrobes battling some sea-people called Purusati; his description of them, their dress, weapons, language, & habits resembles that of the Philistines. Rameses said they were from CRETE. Many scholars identify Caphtor with Crete.

Some say they were originally Mycenaean pirates who, finding the land that became known as Philistia to their liking, decided to settle there & abandon the risky lifestyle of pirates. But they still kept up their fighting skills and iron weapons, as more than one other people cast covetous eyes upon their land.

Seems that they were of Cretan origin, although not necessarily directly from the Mycenaeans.

Forever settled in heaven
12-30-2009, 10:02 AM
[/URL] (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=10#v54)
[URL="http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=10#v54"]54 (http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=10#v54) tn Several commentators prefer to reverse the order of the words to put this clause after the next word, since the Philistines came from Crete (where the Caphtorites lived). But the table may suggest migration rather than lineage, and the Philistines, like the Israelites, came through the Nile Delta region of Egypt. For further discussion of the origin and migration of the Philistines, see D. M. Howard, “Philistines,” Peoples of the Old Testament World, 232.

from the footnote in the NET Bible, fwiw.

Jim1999
12-30-2009, 11:47 AM
Traditionally, we always followed the Philistines as descending from Casluhim, the grandson of Ham (Gen 10:14). They migrated to Palestine from Crete. We never had any reason to alter this thinking.

Cheers,

Jim

Deacon
12-30-2009, 04:20 PM
Knowledge of Hebrew language can clarify the text but not necessarily it’s meaning.
Word order can be problematic in the Hebrew language.

The “literal translation” of Genesis 10:13-14 and it’s companion text, 1 Chronicles 1:11-12 is similar to the ESV’s rendition.

Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim.
Genesis 10:14 ESV

Egypt fathered Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim,
Pathrusim, Casluhim (from whom the Philistines came), and Caphtorim.
1 Chronicles 1:11-12 ESV

But the alternative translation (as seen in the NLT) is a possibility.

Pathrusites, Casluhites, and the Caphtorites, from whom the Philistines came.
Genesis 10:14 NLT

Mizraim was the ancestor of the Ludites, Anamites, Lehabites, Naphtuhites,
Pathrusites, Casluhites, and the Caphtorites, from whom the Philistines came.
1 Chronicles 1:11-12 NLT


A quick look at various commentaries shows possible reasons for the differences.

As Jim noted: “[T]he table may suggest migration rather than lineage, and the Philistines, like the Israelites, came through the Nile Delta region of Egypt.” (Net Bible textual note)

‘That the Philistines are linked both with the Cretans and the Casluhim suggests a close association between these two groups.” (Wenham in WBC Gen 1-15, p 225)

“[I]t may be that the Philistines of Genesis represent a different group from the Philistines of the post-conquest period (so Cassuto 2:207–8; Kitchen, POTT, 56.)” (Wenham in WBC Gen 1-15, p 225)


because of the day that is coming to destroy
all the Philistines,
to cut off from Tyre and Sidon
every helper that remains.
For the LORD is destroying the Philistines,
the remnant of the coastland of Caphtor.
Jeremiah 47:4 ESV


“Are you not like the Cushites to me,
O people of Israel?” declares the LORD.
“Did I not bring up Israel from the land of Egypt,
and the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir?”
Amos 9:7 ESV

Rob

jonathan.borland
12-30-2009, 07:49 PM
Just wanted to thank everyone for the wonderful help!

They never offered a Hebrew textual criticism class at Southeastern Seminary in Wake Forest, NC, when I was there, or else I would have taken it. My copy of BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 4th corr. ed. of 1990) indicates with superscripted "a" letters that the clause ASHER YATSU MISHAM PELISHTIM ("from whom the Philistines came forth") is "prb gl ad CAFTORIM" ("probably a gloss with reference to the Caphtorites"). Since they do not give any manuscript evidence, I'm assuming they assume the "gloss" (if it is really a gloss) happened before the source of the manuscript tradition that gave us all our present copies. So perhaps Morrison merely took a previous editor's advice that the "gloss" refers to the direct object that follows instead of the direct object that precedes, although it seems that even in Hebrew this would be grammatically strange. Any other examples of this grammatically? The difficulty is present since in the other passages the Philistines are presented as coming from the Caphtorites. But we don't want to change the wording simply because of apparent disharmony with other passages. But on the other hand, perhaps this is a primitive error that preceded the source of all our present manuscripts like in 2 Sam 21:19 that ought to be corrected. Who knows? Things like this are why I think Hebrew and Greek textual criticism should be required courses for the M.Div. degree in seminary.

John of Japan
12-30-2009, 08:39 PM
Things like this are why I think Hebrew and Greek textual criticism should be required courses for the M.Div. degree in seminary.
I'll buy that--as long one text/textbook in the NT course is the Byzantine Textform (lots of info in Dr. Robinson's 24 page preface). :smilewinkgrin::D

jonathan.borland
12-31-2009, 12:25 AM
Yes, I agree. In the late 90s I elected to take Dr. Robinson's class in New Testament textual criticism, and what I began to learn in that class has paid rich dividends since. But did you know, not a single pro-Byzantine-priority book or article was required reading? The only required reading was the Alands' textbook and Metzger's textbook, and then collating an ancient manuscript of John written in obscure (at least to us at first) Greek cursive handwriting.

John of Japan
12-31-2009, 02:31 AM
Yes, I agree. In the late 90s I elected to take Dr. Robinson's class in New Testament textual criticism, and what I began to learn in that class has paid rich dividends since. But did you know, not a single pro-Byzantine-priority book or article was required reading? The only required reading was the Alands' textbook and Metzger's textbook, and then collating an ancient manuscript of John written in obscure (at least to us at first) Greek cursive handwriting.
Now that's interesting! Sounds like a great class. I wonder why those textbooks? Of course there wasn't a whole lot of solid stuff for you to choose from--still isn't. But Harry Sturz published his book in 1984 and Wilbur Pickering's is copyright 1977 and 1980. And of course with enough fortitude you can plow through some of Burgon--crashingly boring at times!