Pathrusim

Where is the Land of Pathros?

During our discussion of Naphtuhim we mentioned Pathros being designated as “Eretz” Pathros, meaning the Land of Pathros. Unlike the Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, and even the later Casluhim; the Pathrusim are the only group of Mizraim’s sons given their own “land”. This is a heavy implication, and separates Pathros as a full regional designation of Egypt.

To play devil’s advocate, there is a chance Pathros is not necessarily a region, but a generalized designation for “Egypt”. The “Land of Pathros” just being meant as Egypt could be intended, but oftentimes it goes along with the term Mizraim. Again, it could be said that Pathros is the son of Mizraim and thus would be the “primary son” mentioned for a designation of Egypt similar to Judahites and Israel. However, I think there is something more interesting going on with Pathros.

As we have discussed over the previous chapters the other four sons of Mizraim are likely the earlier dynasties of Egypt’s past. We know the Egyptians of later periods had already known the Pyramids and other structures like the Sphinx were much older than their time, and presumably the “Egyptian Jews” would know many of the same basic facts. They would have known that the “Pathusim, sons of Mizraim” are not the first son, but came after a line of sons, or “dynastic eras” previously. In this sense, Pathros was viewed as the “concurrent” dynasty of Egypt, and potentially the New Kingdom period when the entirety of the Mosaic narrative takes place. 

Obviously we are going to need to find evidence for this, but it’s not very difficult since most scholars and rabbinic sources generally agree on a designation for Pathros as the entire south of Egypt centered around Thebes. I do not believe these designations to fully encompass the textual breath of what the Torah is trying to accomplish, but I think these are very helpful clues.

Turning again to the primary text, Ezekiel 29:14 “Land of Pathros, to the land of their habitation, and they shall be there an unimportant kingdom” shows clearly Pathros as a regional location for an Egyptian Kingdom of the future, that will be unimportant. Yet another similar reference a chapter later in Ezekiel 30:14 “And I shall make Pathros desolate.” Given no Kingdom ever rose out of Thebes after the period of Ezekiel, we can safely say the prophet has been fairly accurate in his words and “Pathros has been made desolate”.

Turning to Isaiah 11:11 we are given an incredibly strange reference to Pathros in a verifiable list of actual nations and Kingdoms: 

“And it shall come to pass that on that day, the Lord shall continue to apply His hand a second time to acquire the rest of His people, that will remain from Assyria and from Egypt and from Pathros and from Cush and from Elam and from Sumeria and from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.”

Listed this time alongside Assyria, Egypt, Cush, Elam, Sumeria, Hamath and the “islands of the Sea”; Pathros is given an extremely special designation as not just any nation but a verified “world power”. I would actually go so far as to call this line in Isaiah the “World Powers” or the most historical term “Great Powers” of the biblical era. Even more odd is that Pathros is separate from Egypt! This is less strange when one recognizes that Hamath is also a son of Canaan, so there are two “great grandchildren of Noah” on this world superpowers list, but it’s interesting they have risen to the acclaim of “Great Powers” in their own rite.

Helping further this theory that Pathros is not merely “Egypt”, but a specific regional subset within Mizraim generally is in Jeremiah 44:15 where it says “all the people dwelling in the land of Egypt, in Pathros”. This line clearly shows Pathros is merely being “added” to Egypt here, and is more like a tack on term to imply a specific region. The way it is used here certifies that Pathros is almost interchangeable with the term Egypt.

All of these designations help solidify that Pathros was “Egypt in the South”, more specifically located around Thebes, the capital of the New Kingdom era of Egyptian history, slotting quite nicely within our current paradigm for Egypt and his sons as Dynasties. Specifically Upper Egypt, which today is inhabited by a sub-group of Egyptians known as the “Sa’idi”. Their name is merely a designation for the Said region, or “upper” in Arabic. The Saidis are often persecuted and viewed as inferior by the more “purely Arab” Egyptians in the north, and in many ways are a contiguous population inhabiting Egypt since ancient times. If we are looking for a “people of Pathros” it is certainly the Saidi. However, the Saidi are a more modern people descended from Pathros, rather than specifically a cultural expression of Pathros.

Looking for external references to a “Pathros” we can find in Pliny’s Natural History 9:47 including within a list of Egyptian Nomes - and thus regions - is the “Phaturite” Nome, situated near Coptos. Thebes being directly south of Coptos helps identify this “Phatur” with the Pathrusim, the Greek phonological equivalent of “Pathros”. The Greeks and Romans generally associated Pathros with Upper Egypt, helping confirm this identification.

There is a tenuous identification with “Pah-roh” and “Pah-tros”, with “Pah-roh” being the Hebrew term for Pharaoh. Is it a coincidence that these terms are so closely linked, or again a sign of biblical double entendres? I once again prefer the latter explanation.

Many post biblical references to the Pathrusim talk about them “inter mixing” with the Casluhim and resulting in the Philistines; and the full line from I Chronicles 1:12 actually says “the Pathrusim, the Casluhim (whence the Philistines came forth), and the Caphtorim.” We will really flesh this out when discussing the Casluhim since it doesn’t exactly affect identifications for the Pathrusim. The line isn’t telling us anything other than the possible fact that Philistines “came forth from” the Casluhim, with some kind of involvement from the Pathrusim.

While some scholars imply this to mean “birth” it will require a full analysis to actually identify what those lines intend. I would personally suggest this line is implying the Philistines came forth during the reign of the New Kingdom dynasties, lining up nicely with our identification. I would identify the Pathrusim where most scholars agree they were, Upper Egypt, but I would take it a step further and make the claim they represent the Upper Egyptian dynasties in the New Kingdom whose power centered on Thebes often, but whose Kingdom was quite unified North-South in ways previous Egyptian dynasties were not. The New Kingdom representing the height of Egyptian power during the Exodus, contiguous with much of the early rise of the Israelites makes sense that in Jewish writings Egypt is thus referred to as “The Land of Pathros”.