RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
further twofold division suggests itself, viz. be- tween those which belong to the more immediate ethnic group of which the Hebrews form a part, and those which lie outside of these limits. Con- fining ourselves in the main to a discussion of the theme in the narrower sense, it will meet our pur- poses best to treat it under these two aspects.
i. THE HEBREWS AND SEMITES. —The group historically known as the Hebrews, and forming the confederation of tribes to which the name Béné Israel is given in the OT, forms part of a larger group known as the SEMITES. By virtue of this relationship, and in consequence of the geo- graphical distribution of the other branches of the Semites, it is to the Semitic family that the races most prominently mentioned in the OT belong. The term Semite is used both in an ethnological and in a linguistic sense. As origin- ally employed by J. G. Eichhorn* at the close of the 18th century, it embraced the peoples grouped in Gn 10 as the ‘sons of Shem.’ Since, however, it has been ascertained that the peoples thus grouped do not belong to one race or even to allied races, the ethnological application of the term has been modified to designate a race dis- tinguished by the following features: dolicho- cephalic skulls; curly and abundant hair ; slightly wavy or straight strong beard, the colour pre- dominantly black; prominent nose, straight or aquiline ; oval face. +
It must, however, be borne in mind that the
pure type is comparatively rare. At an exceed- ingly remote period the mixture of Semites with Hamites and Aryans began, so that except in the less accessible regions of central Arabia it is doubtful whether pure Semites exist at all. So pronounced has this mixture been that some investigators regard the Semites as the product of two races—a blonde and a dark race; but the introduction of such a division is confusing. The mixture has not been with one race but with many races, and hence it is but natural that a variety of types Should have been produced. The preponderating type, however, being dark, it is legitimate to conclude that the latter represents the original stock, and that the ‘ blonde’ Semites furnish the proof precisely of that admixture abee we know from other sources actually took place. ; Where the original home of the Semites lay is a matter of dispute, and will probably never be settled to the satisfaction of all scholars. The drift of scholarly opinion, after vacillating between southern Babylonia, the eastern confines of Africa, southern Arabia, and the interior of the Arabian peninsula, is now in favour of the latter region.t t is, at all events, in central Arabia that the ee Semitic type is still found, and, so far as known, it was invariably from the interior of Arabia that the Semitic hordes poured forth to the north-east and north-west and south to estab- lish cultured States or to assimilate the culture which they already found existing,
It is in this way that we may account for the greatest of Semitic States—that of BABYLONIA and ASSYRIA in the Euphrates Valley and along the banks of the Tigris. The course of culture in Mesopotamia is from south to north, and this fact is in itself an important indication that the Semites who took possession of Babylonia came
* Hist.-Kritische Hinlett. in das AT (Leipzig, 1780), p. 45. t See, e.g., Brinton, Races and Peoples (New York, 1890), p. 134
t For recent discussions of the various theories, see Néldeke, Die semitischen Sprachen (Leipzig, 1887), and his article ‘ Semitic Languages’ in Encyc. Brit.9; also Brinton and Jastrow, The Cradle of the Semites (Philadelphia, 1891), where further refer- ences will be found; and more recently G. A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (New York, 1902), ch. i.
RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
from a district lying to the south of Babylonia. The Babylonians and Assyrians thus form a distinct branch of the Semites, though at the same time furnishing an illustration of the ad- mixture with other races upon which we have dwelt. The Euphrates Valley appears to have been from time immemorial a gathering-place of various nations, and, in passing, it may be noted that the Biblical legend of the confusion of tongues (Gn 11), which significantly takes place in Baby- lonia, appears to be based upon a dim recollection of this circumstance. So far as present indica- tions go, the Semites upon coming to the Euphrates Valley already found a culture in existence which, however, they so thoroughly assimilated, and on which at the same time they impressed the stamp of their peculiar personality to such an extent, as to make it substantially a Semitic product. In- deed, the presence of this earlier culture was probably the attraction which led to the Semitic invasion from the interior of Arabia, just as at a later date the Semitic civilization of the Euphrates attracted other Semitic hordes towards making a northern movement from this same region. It is among these hordes, pouring out of the steppes of Arabia, and proceeding in the direction of the Euphrates Valley, that we are to seek for the ancestors of the Hebrews.
The sociological process which began thousands of years ago is still going on at the present time, where nomadic groups, attracted by the opportuni- ties of spoil, continue to skirt the regions of culture in the East, with the result that a certain propor- tion of them are permanently gained for the cause of civilization, and settle in culture centres.* The Biblical tradition which goes back to settlements on the Euphrates—Ur and Harran (Gn 1128-31) — finds an explanation in such a movement. Form- ing part of a nomadic invasion, the Hebrews were among those who, allured by the attractions of Babylonian culture, made settlements of a more