This one is going to get tricky, and really requires some analysis of the Hebrew to kick off the discussion. The term prior to Philistines in Hebrew is “אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָצְא֥וּ מִשָּׁ֛ם” which translated literally means something like “which - came out - from there” followed by “Philistines”. The text implies that from the Casluhim, the Philistines emerged making them something of a grandchild of Mizraim.
All of the children so far, from the Ludim, to the Pathrusim, Casluhim, and even the coming Caphtorim all start with the term “וְֽאֶת” to imply a specific nation distinct from the Philistines who lack this prefix. The implication from the Hebrew is that the Philistines are not counted among the “70” nations on the Table of Nations, but there are other debates regarding who is exactly counted, other examples being Nimrod, or even Noah being included.
The counting is not that important, but what is strange is the national implication for the Philistines despite them forming historically verified ethnic groups, with their own national country. This could mean that the lack of inclusion of the Philistines is more of a dating concern, but the reality is that they were quite relevant even during the time of Moshe meaning the dating aspect is not pertinent for a members inclusion on the Table. This gives rise to a few Rabbinic theories for what separates the Philistines from their ‘brother’ nations.
Starting off with one of the earliest sources we have Bereshit Rabbah commenting on Genesis 10:14 saying: “Patrusim” – Parvitot. “Kasluḥim” – Pekusim. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Patrusim and Kasluḥim produced bachelors, these would steal the wives of those, and those would steal the wives of these. What emerged from them? Philistines – mighty, *They would invade [poleshim] other lands. “Kaftorim” – dwarfs. *They were small and round like buttons [kaftorim].”1 Lots to unpack, but this appears to form the basis for many later Rabbinic commentaries.
The term for Patrusim “Parvitot” is something I cannot explain, but being a term for the Patrusim doesn’t having bearing on the Philistines. The term “Pekusim” in relation to the Kasluhim might actually be something like “Pentapolis”, with the implication of a similar region as laid out in our discussion of Casluhim. According to Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, it was both of these groups that mixed together through forced kidnapping of the other groups' women. Effectively, it is some form of adultery, effectively resulting in the category of mamzer! The classification of a mamzer, otherwise known as a ‘bastard’ in English parlance, actually doesn’t apply to children out of wedlock, but only in the case of an already married woman - the wives in this case - having children with men who are not their husbands. While mamzerim are typically seen as a Jewish category, it’s very possible that Egyptian groups, especially a Canaanite dwelling group like the Philistines, might actually have followed this law similar to how many Egyptian groups were also circumcised.
Strangely through, the text actually implies two competing causes for why Philistines were left off the Table. While their classification as mamzerim seems important and the main reason, a supplementary reason can be found in the definition of their group as “mighty”. This term is obviously “gibbor” which brings up a connection to the gibborim, or giants, known from their descent from the Nephilim. What is possible here is that the wives taken by the Pathrusim and Casluhim were actually “gibborim women”, and some section of the giant Philistines like the notable Goliath might actually descend from this tenuous origin.
This might be the real cause for their exclusion due to their lack of pure ‘human’ lineage, which also explains Nimrod’s exclusion. Those interested in a full discussion of this topic about Nimrod or the Giants and other non-human lineages should turn to two other books from this series, Table of Nations: Nimrod and Table of Nations: Adam which deal with both topics respectively.
We have to be careful about the asterisk from Bereshit Rabbah, since it doesn’t seem to come from Rabbi Abba bar Kahana himself, but from a separate commentary based exclusively on digging into grammatical explanations for the terms. “Philistim” is related to “Poleshim” which means something like invaders, colonists, settlers, or immigrants. This squares away with historical understanding of the Philistines as invaders of the Gaza plain in Canaan, and not native to the region. This might give us a third reason for their exclusion, that being their lack of any actual territory given to them by Noah.
The final part of this actually deals with Caphtorim, calling them ‘dwarves’ based on an understanding of the term in relation to small round buttons. This seems very odd, but must be shelves for the coming section.
Seemingly from Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi interprets the text to mean “The Pathrusim and the Casluhim would switch wives with each other, and from them were descended the Philistines (and the Caphtorim).”2 Rashi doesn’t bring up the possible connection to giants, and seemingly mentions them as some kind of open-relationship wife swappers, who none-the-less result in a class of mamzerim called the Philistines who lacked legitimate claim to any territory making them ‘invaders’.
This again is supported by both archeological and textual material from Egypt that claims the Philistines were forcibly settled in the region by the Egyptians themselves no less showing that even in Egyptian terms these groups came forth from Egypt, at the behest of Egyptian Pharaohs. Importantly, the Pharaohs whose reliefs claim resettlement of these groups are actually the New Kingdom Pharaohs that we identified with Pathrusim, as well as the Casluhim, giving rise to a syncretization for this Rabbinic origin theory.
Turning next to Radak, he seems to support much of this, basing his own analysis on Rashi, but adding some information saying “It is not clear if the Philistines are the offspring of only the Casluhim or from both the Patrusim and the Casluhim who had intermarried among themselves so that the Philistines had genetic input from both these families. It is interesting that the expression שם or משם, i.e. expressions used to describe physical locations, origins, are also used elsewhere in a genetic sense such as in Genesis 49,24 משם רועה אבן ישראל, “from there he became the shepherd of Israel.”3 Radak actually seems to be hinting at what we just theorized, that the “physical location” element of this term implies an importance for its inclusion next to the Philistines. The text might be trying to imply they lacked this physical location, and their ‘physical’ location was inside Egyptian territory making them not an official ‘nation’.
There is an odd relation between the Philistines and the Caphtorim, often implied to be some kind of familial connection beyond being a mere uncle. This comes from Deuteronomy 2:23 which says openly “But the Avim, who dwell in open cities, up till Gaza -- the Caphtorites, who came forth of Caphtor, exterminated them, and dwelt in their stead.” The Torah itself says the Caphtorites displaced the Avim “up till Gaza”, and other lines all over the text affirm the Avim as residents of Philistia and the Gaza plain.
This isn’t the only line that supports a connection between the Caphtorim and Philistines, however, where in Amos 9:7 the line “Are you not like the children of the Cushites to Me, O children of Israel? says the Lord. Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, and the Philistines from Caphtor and Aram from Kir?” This line actually goes further and claims the Philistines came from Caphtor, but based on Deuteronomy it seems the Caphtorites hunted down the Philistines of sorts and displaced them once again?
The connection between the Caphtorim and the Philistines starts to get clearer when looking at Rashi’s commentary on Deuteronomy where he says “But because of the oath which Abraham had sworn to Abimelech, king of the Philistines (Genesis 21:24), Israel would have been unable to take their land out of their possession; but, says God, I brought the Caphtorites against them and they destroyed them and dwelt in their stead, and now you are permitted to take it (that land) from their (the Caphtorites) possession (Chullin 60b)” Very clearly, based on the Talmud4, Rashi states that the Caphtorim were the group that displaced the Philistines from their cities. This would square away with a shift in Greek pottery prior to the Israelite conquest of the region, possibly implying ‘Philistine’ culture was displaced at some point. It isn’t totally clear, but in our analysis of Caphtor the connection might begin to make more sense.
We actually have a machlokes (dispute) on this between Ramban and Rashi, where he cites the exact commentary of Rashi based on Bereshit Rabbah 37. Quoting Ramban in full “In my opinion, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the Casluhim dwelled in a city of that name — which was part of the land of Caphtor where the Caphtorim their brethren were — and they went forth from there, meaning from the Caphtorim who were of the seed of Casluhim. And they went in order to look for a resting-place for themselves, and they left the land to their brethren and conquered for themselves a land by the name of Philistia, after which they came to be called Philistines. This is why Scripture says, The Caphtorim, that came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead, the Caphtorim being of the sons of Casluhim, dwellers of the land of Caphtor.” Let’s break this into two parts, first Ramban asserts the Casluhim and Caphtorim were of the same territory, and second he claims the Caphtorim were the Philistines by another name, unlike Rashi who claims they are different groups entirely.
His first theory seems unlikely, based on what we have said about the text so far given the term implying national status only lacks from the Philistines, and not either the Casluhim or Caphtorim. Those two were the sons of Mizraim, and had their own lands, which squares away with most Rabbinic views on the subject. I will have to disagree with Ramban on that first point since I see no reason to connect anything to the Caphtorim coming from the Casluhim, however, the second one has far stronger evidence to support the thesis. It is very possible that some ‘Caphtorim’ element moves into Philistia, displacing the original inhabitants and shifting the culture to something definitely Caphtorite, which we will analyze shortly.
One interesting point Ramban brings up in his commentary to Deuteronomy 2:23 where he says “AND THE AVIM THAT DWELT IN VILLAGES. Scripture is stating of the Avim that dwelt in villages — without a wall around them”. This line might really support the thesis that the “pentapolis” concept really was one of ‘cities’ vs ‘villages’ and these fortified, walled cities were the principal cultural signal of the military conquest by a Philistine, or Caphotorim nation.
Coming to solve this dispute between Rashi and Ramban (Nachmanides) we have the Ba’al HaTurim, Yaacov ben Asher, who makes a lengthy commentary on the subject relevant to support our own theories.
“Let us now turn to Rashi’s explanation that the Avim were descendants of the Philistines, seeing that they are lumped together in the Book of Joshua, 13,3 and that the Israelites at this time were unable to dispossess them on account of the oath given by Avraham to Avimelech in Genesis 21,23 (which spanned 4 generations) Seeing that the Philistines there had been replaced by the Caphtorim, Avraham’s oath no longer applied.
Nachmanides challenges this interpretation by Rashi, claiming that the Avim have not been included under the heading of the Philistines, as in the quotation from Joshua the five leaders of the Philistines are mentioned first, without any mention of the Avim; only subsequently are the Avim listed as a separate nation. [Presumably, Nachmanides’ argument is based on the fact that the verse begins mentioning that there were only 5 such leaders of the Philistines, so that anyone mentioned after those five have been named is not included. Ed.]
Furthermore, assuming that the land of the Avim had become permitted to the Israelites because they were not the original inhabitants there but had been replaced already by a previous invading force by the Caphtorim, who permitted the lands of the Philistines? What reason was there that the lands of the Philistines should ever become part of the land of Israel so that Avimelech had felt threatened and asked Avraham for a non-aggression pact covering the next four generations? After all, the Philistines did not belong to the seven Canaanite tribes whose land G’d had promised to Avraham? The Philistines are, after all, descended from Mitzrayim, the second son of Cham, not of Canaan his fourth son!
In light of all the above the true historical facts are that the Philistines as well as the Caphtorim had invaded and captured some of the lands previously occupied by the Canaanites, else how come Avimelech was King in Gerar, a territory at one time belonging to the Canaanites? The Philistines as well as the Caphtorim expanded southwards in the coastal plain and conquered Gaza, Ashkelon, Gat and Ekron from the Cananites. This made it legal for the Israelites to occupy lands that had been illegally acquired by its residents. Those lands, according to G’d’s promise to Avraham, had been intended as their ancestral heritage. As it happened, the Israelites did not actually conquer that coastal plain until long after the time frame provided for in Avraham’s oath to Avimelech had expired. Three generations of Philistines had already died before Joshua began his conquest of the land of Canaan.”5
Clear from the Ba’al HaTurim we see the Philistines and Caphtorim were separate people, contradicting Ramban in rare fashion given his usual complete support for Ramban’s theories. It seems he even went out of his way to explain why Ramban was incorrect on this point, but also seems to disagree with Rashi in part with his identification for the Avim. For a full discussion of the Avim and their relation to the giants, one must again turn to the entire book written to deal with this thorny subject “Table of Nations: Adam”. For our purposes here, it is very clear that Ba’al HaTurim supports what we have been saying about the Philistines emerging from among Egypt, and illegally conquering Canaan giving the Israelites fair rite to take over the land.
While we have thus far dealt with Rabbinic theories relating to the origin, and nature of the Philistine ethnogenesis, we are going to shift this discussion into historical, and academic scholarship to better understand really “who” these Philistines were from an ancient context. Let us now discuss the infamous, and notorious “Sea Peoples” - a fitting group to have emerged during the dynastic era of the Casluhim, who wreaked havoc around the Mediterranean during the fall of the New Kingdom, in other words Pathrusim. The emergence of the Philistines and Sea Peoples during the transition between Pathrusim (New Kingdom) and Casluhim (Third Intermediate/Late Period) is more than a coincidence, and instead a memory.
Bereshit Rabbah 37:5
Rashi on I Chronicles 1:12:2
Radak on Genesis 10:14:1
Chullin 60b:13
Tur HaArokh, Deuteronomy 2:23:1
Incredibly well written and informative.