ermanent character along the Euphrates, first at tr and later farther north at Harran. That, how- ever, these settlements did not involve casting aside nomadic habits altogether, is shown by the Biblical tradition which records a movement of Hebrews from Ur to Harran and thence by the northern route into Palestine. The presence of an Eliezer clan of Damascus in close affiliation with Abraham (Gn 15?) and his band, points to a tem- porary settlement at Damascus on the route to the west. Once on the west of the Jordan, the Hebrews continue their semi-nomadic habits for several centuries, and it is not until the 11th cent. that this stage in their career is definitely closed.
These movements of the Hebrews, as recorded ina blurred, and yet for that reason not altogether unhistorical tradition, suggest, as already pointed out, the manner in which southern Mesopotamia became a thoroughly Semitic State, the invading Semites absorbing the old culture (whatever that was, and whatsoever its origin may have been), and giving a new direction to the further intel- lectual, social, and religious development of the Euphrates Valley. This parallel also indicates— what is more important for our purposes—a com- mon origin for the Semites who obtained possession of Babylonia and those who, after moving up and down the western outskirts of Babylonia, entered Palestine. The testimony of language bears out this supposition, for the relationship between Hebrew and Babylonian is such as to warrant our concluding in favour of the descent of the two peoples from one common branch to which the name ‘ Arameean’ may be given.
It is both interesting and significant to find that
* See Lady Anne Blunt, The Bedouin Tribes of the Euphrates (London, 1879), especially chs. xxiii. and xxiv.
RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 73
tradition preserves the appropriateness of this designation. On a solemn occasion, when the Hebrew, appearing before Jahweh, is to recall his past, a formula is introduced in which he refers to his ancestor as ‘a stray (128) Arameean’ (Dt 26°),
1, The ARAMAAN branch of the Semites thus assumes large dimensions. Besides the Babylonians and Assyrians and Hebrews, it includes the Semites who settled in Syria as well as the groups of Moabites and Ammonites settled on the east side of the Jordan, while the Pheenicians settled on the Mediterranean coast constitute another Arammean division or offshoot. Of the relationship existing between Hebrews and Babylonians we have already spoken. When the early contact in the Euphrates district began, of which Biblical tradition preserves a faint recollection, it is impossible to say; nor must it be supposed that the Hebrews at the time of their forward movement from interior Arabia were sharply differentiated from the promiscuous groups of Semites who participated in the move- ment.
By virtue of the relationship existing between Hebrew and the various Aramaic dialects, particu- larly between Hebrew and Aramaic in its oldest form,* we are justified in thus placing the group subsequently distinguished as a conglomeration of clans, from which the Hebrews trace their descent, in the same category with that large and some- what indefinite branch of Semites which we have already designated as Aramzan. While the relationship between Hebrews and Babylonian- Assyrians was never entirely broken off, political or commercial associations being maintained with but short interruptions between Mesopotamia and Palestine from the time of the permanent settle- ment of the Hebrews to the west of the Jordan, down to the destruction of the two Hebrew king- doms in the 8th and 6th cents. respectively, this relationship was not so close as that which was maintained between the Hebrews on the one hand, and the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Ishmael- ites (or Arabs), Phoenicians, and other subdivisions of the great Aramean branch, on the other. Among the races occurring in the OT, it is these which occupy the most prominent place in Hebrew history. It seems desirable, therefore, to dwell upon them in greater detail.
The tradition recorded in Gn 19°83 which ascribes the origin of the MOABITES and AMMON- ITES to an act of incest committed by Lot with his two daughters, simply reflects the hostility between these two nations and the Hebrews. To throw discredit upon an opponent’s ancestry is a favourite method in Arabic poetry of expressing one’s contempt and inveterate hatred. More sig- nificant, as pointing to the close bond between these three groups, is the circumstance that Abraham and Lot are represented as uncle and nephew. Interpreted historically, this relation- ship points to a clan or group of clans exercising supremacy over another group or sending forth this group as an offshoot. The character of the Abraham-Lot cycle of stories points to the latter contingency. ‘The separation of Lot from Abraham (Gn 18) is decisive in this respect. It is the form in which tradition records the recollection that one group is an offshoot of a larger one. The quarrel between Abraham’s ‘ men’ and the followers of Lot is the common occurrence among nomads. They separate into little groups, and, as these groups erow, rivalry ensues, leading to further separation. We are therefore justified in concluding that Moabites and Ammonites were at one time not differentiated from the Hebrews, or rather that all three belonged to a single group, whatever the
* e.g. the inscriptions of Teima (c. 6th cent. Bc.) and the inscriptions of Zinjerli (8th cent. B.C, ).