So far as the OT is concerned, we are interested only in the first two subdivisions. The culture of the Arab branch of the Semites begins in the south —in southern Arabia and in Abyssinia. Which of these is the original and which the off- shoot is a question which a number of years ago could have been answered without hesitation in favour of the former, but which now is an open one. During the past two decades, inscriptions have been found in Yemen and in Abyssinia re- vealing the existence of several important king- doms in southern Arabia, and indicating both here and on the opposite African coast a noteworthy degree of culture, the age of which is at least fifteen hundred years before our era, and which may turn out to be considerably older.
If the theory which places the home of the Semites in central Arabia be accepted, the pro- babilities are that, corresponding to a northern movement, there was a tendency for certain groups of Semites to spread towards the south ; and if the culture in the south was actually established by them in this way, it would also be natural to suppose that this culture was carried by emigrants from Yemen to Abyssinia. How- ever that may be, the language of southern Arabia, known as Himyaritic,—subdivided into a number of dialects, —and that of Abyssinia, known as Ethiopic, prove a close connexion between the groups inhabiting this district. It is interesting to note that southern Arabia and Abyssinia are mentioned in the famous description of the rivers of Paradise (Gn 2!) ; for, whatever the origin of the name Havilah is, there is little doubt that some district of Arabia is meant,* while the land of Cush is, to the writer of Gn 2, Ethiopia.
The historical relations between Hebrews and the Arabs of southern Arabia appear to have been entirely of a commercial character, and these
*Glaser, Shkizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens (Berlin, 1890), ii. 323-326.
RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
seem to have been confined to the short period of political glory which tradition associates with the reign of Solomon. This commercial inter- course between southern Arabia and Palestine gave rise to the ‘ Midrashic’ tale of the queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon (1 K 101"), to which the Arabs have added as supplement Solomon’s visit to Yemen.* The Arabs have also retained the recollection of the twofold division of the branch, and, in the genealogical lists prepared with such infinite care by the genealogists, one branch—the northern—is traced back to Adnan, and the other —the southern—to Kahtan.
The Ethiopians were well known to the Hebrews, and the prophets are fond of introducing allusions to them into their orations (e.g. Is 181, Jer 46°, Ezk 29” 304 ete., Nah 3°, Zeph 3"), although Cush does not always stand for Ethiopia.
_Coming back to the tradition in Genesis which divides the Hebrews after Isaac into two divisions —Jacob-Israel and Esau-Edom—there can scarcely be any doubt that we have here again a case of a popular tradition and perfectly reliable, in so far as it points to a common origin for the Hebrews and the Edomites. While the Moabites and the Ammonites remained east of the Jordan and the Hebrews moved to the west, the Edomites eventu- ally established themselves to the south and south- east of the Hebrews; though, retaining their nomadic habits of life and nomadic fierceness of manner, they frequently made incursions into the territory of their neighbours. The form of the Biblical tradition would also indicate that the Edomites formed part of the ‘Aramean’ emigration that entered the lands to the east of the Jordan in a series of migratory waves, coming by the northern route from the Euphrates district. Jacob and Esau are represented as twin sons of the Isaac and Rebekah clans. The marriage between Isaac and Rebekah, inter- preted historically, means that a branch of the Abrahamitic group formed an alliance with another group which, in continuation of the western movement that brought Abraham and Lot to the west, prompted other Aramzan groups to follow the example. Rebekah coming from ‘Aram-naharaim’ to join the Hebrew group is a proof for the theory above maintained, that the stream of ‘Aramean’ emigration to the west continued steadily for an indefinite period, and perhaps never ceased entirely. Alliances between small groups are common among the nomads to this day ; but the result is generally that after a time a separation again takes place, not neces- sarily between the same groups, but in the next generation or two, by which time the growth of the united group has been such as to engender rivalries among the members.
In the case of Jacob and Esau there is another reason for the separation, and one of no small historical moment. It was natural that some at least of the Aramzean hordes, attracted to the Euphrates district by the culture existing there, should have been influenced by the example of this culture to take a forward step in civilization. We may safely set down Babylonian culture as an important factor in bringing about the division of the Semitic nomads into two classes—those of the fiercer grade retaining their nomadic habits unchanged, dependent upon hunting and plunder for their sustenance ; and the higher grade, softer in manner, wandering about, followed by their flocks, and continuing nomadic habits chiefly for the sake of the latter and because of the necessity of seeking proper pasturage at the various seasons of the year. Those groups of the Aramzan branch