74 RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
name of that group may have been. That there were other clans or tribes arising from that general group is quite certain, and, as this body of Arameean tribes moved northwards from the Euphrates Valley and settled to the east and west of the Jordan, they were joined on the road by others. It is not necessary for all the members of the group to have come into Palestine at one time. On the contrary, it is more likely that, owing to circumstances beyond our knowledge, it was a series of waves of emigration that led Aramzan groups away from the Euphrates and by a devious northern route towards lands farther to the west. The Hebrews, Moabites, and Ammonites were carried along by these waves ; and, whatever the order in which they came, the motives leading them to the west were the same in all. Language again comes to our aid in confirming this theory of the intimate bond uniting Hebrews to Moabites and Ammonites, The Moabite Stone (see vol. iii. p. 404 ff.), found in 1868 at Dibon, the capital of Moab, and recording the deeds of Mesha, king of Moab (c. 850 B.C.), proves that Hebrew and Moabitish differ from one another as much as and no more than the dialect of northern Germany differs from the speech of southern Germany, while the proper names of Ammonitish rulers and gods in the OT, in default of Ammonite records which have not yet been found, indicate that Hebrew and Ammonitish stood in the same close relationship to one another. That the political relations continued to be hostile from the first differentiation of the three groups, is the natural outcome of conditions which still characterize the districts once occupied by the Moabites and Ammonites.
The case is somewhat different with the Epom- IrEs. The fact that they do not enter upon the scene until after the Hebrews had crossed the Jordan is significant. The process of differentia- tion had progressed sufficiently to single out of the Aramezan branch the Hebrews as a distinct sub- division. If tradition is to be trusted, the con- tinuation of this same process which led to the separation of the Abraham and Lot clans, further divided the Hebrews into two subdivisions, one represented by Isaac—Jacob—Israel, the other by Ishmael—Esau—Edom. The double line of tradi- tion, however, complicates the situation consider- ably. Ishmael and Isaac as ‘sons’ of Abraham are paralleled by Esau and Jacob as‘ sons’ of Isaac. To conclude that the Abrahamitic group first separated into two subdivisions, Isaac and Ishmael, and that subsequently another differentiation took place between Esau and Jacob as branches of the Isaac group, seems tempting; but this simple solution of the problem encounters some obstacles. The ISHMAELITES, according to Biblical tradition, are identified with the large body of tribes in central northern Arabia, and the Arabs themselves have accepted this tradition ; but the unequal proportion between the two, the Hebrews representing a well- defined group of comparatively small extent, while the Ishmaelites assume the dimensions of a branch of the Semites as extensive and as undefined as the ‘Arameans,’ raises the suspicion that the Biblical tradition in this instance is not of popular origin, or at all events not wholly popular, Lat due to a ‘learned’ theory which attempted to account for the close racial and the no less close linguistic affinities between Hebrews and Arabs. The theory is naturally interpreted in the OT with due allow- ance for national pride, so that, while Ishmael is conceded to be the older son of Abraham (Gn 16"), Isaac is the favourite one (22?), While, again, the tradition is forced to make the concession to historical fact in predicting for Ishmael a large
rogeny (Gn _16!°-17*), and otherwise admitting lohim’s partiality for Ishmael (e.g. 17}8),—witness
RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
the act of circumcision which admits him into the covenant with Elohim (17-6), and Ishmael’s miraculous deliverance (21'*°),—the general aim of the tradition is to play off Isaac against Ishmael. This is consciously done, and in a manner quite different from the naive way in which in other instances popular tradition is given a literary form. If in addition it be borne in mind that, in the actual history of the Hebrews, Ishmaelites play no part, it seems plausible to conclude that the Ishmaelitic current in the OT tradition is not of popular origin. The Ishmaelites do not dwell in Palestine or in the immediately adjacent dis- tricts, and popular tradition takes no interest in groups of peoples with which it has nothing to do. At most, Ishmael’s being driven away from the domain set aside for Isaac may recall a settlement in Palestine prior to the advent of the Hebrews ; but even this element of historical sediment in the tradition is doubtful, and it seems more plausible to assume that the separation of Isaac and Ishmael is a ‘doublet’ suggested either by Lot’s separation from Abraham or Jacob’s separation from Esau, the story itself being introduced to account for the ethnic relationship between Hebrews and Arabs. As such it has its value and, in a certain sense of the word, its justification.
2. The ARABS represent the second great branch into which the Semites may be divided, and as further subdivisions of this branch we may dis- tinguish (1) the Arabs of central and northern Arabia ; (2) the Arabs of southern Arabia ; (3) the offshoot of the latter in Africa—notably in Abys- sinia; (4) the offshoots in modern times of the Arabs of northern and central Arabia in (a) Egypt and the N. African coast, (6) Palestine and Syria, (c) India and the Malay Archipelago.