iii. NON-SEMITIC AND MIXED RAcgEs.—1. But, while a doubt thus remains as to the ethnic character of the Hittites, there is no question as to the non-Semitic character of a group with which the Hebrews from a certain period came into close though always hostile contact — the PHILISTINES. ‘There is no reason to question the tradition which makes them come from CAPHTOR (Am 97, Dt 2°, Jer 47+); and, while the problems connected with the identification of Caphtor have not been entirely solved, still all the indications point towards Crete, and scholars are now pretty generally agreed in regarding the Philistines as pirates belonging to some branch of the Aryan stock, who, attracted perhaps, as were the Hebrews, by the fertile lands of Palestine, forced their way into the Canaanitish settlements, and succeeded in obtaining the supremacy in the entire ‘Shephé- lah,’ where they established a number of petty kingdoms. Almost immediately after they entered Palestine, hostilities between Hebrews and Philis- tines began, and, long after the Canaanites were subdued, the Hebrews still had to contend against the armies of the Philistines. In the days of David their opposition was broken, and, though after the death of Solomon they regained their independence, it was but a shadow of the old power that remained. The interference of Assyria in Palestinian affairs dispelled even this shadow.
We have thus passed in rapid review the large variety of groups in Palestine and adjacent dis- tricts with which the Hebrews came into political or commercial contact, and who occupy a more or less prominent place among the races of the OT.
2. Passing beyond the narrower bounds, and yet not leaving Semitic settlements altogether, we have first to deal with the E@yprians. Like Baby- lonia, Egypt, by virtue of its flourishing culture, proved an attractive magnet which drew the no- mads of the Sinai peninsula and adjacent districts to frequent sallies against the outlying Egyptian cities, and, as in the case of the Aramzean advances along the banks of the Euphrates, the higher cul- ture prompted groups now and then to a forward step which led to the partial abandonment of the life commensurate with the Bedawin stage of cul- ture. Egypt, accessible both from the north and
$$$
RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
the south, on several occasions fell a prey to in- vaders who managed to obtain control of the political fortunes of the country. The monuments at Beni Hassan depict most graphically an invasion of foreigners, who are none other than the Semites, entering Egypt, and, as we learn from various sources, gradually becoming powerful factions in certain of the Egyptian districts. The Hyksos dynasty is an illustration of the power which foreigners managed to obtain in Egypt; and who- ever may be intended by the Pharaoh under whom Joseph, according to Biblical tradition, rose to eminence, his presence marks the success of one of the Semitic invasions of Egypt. The groups that primarily came to Egypt naturally belonged to the Arabic branch of the Semites, but these were not infrequently joined by those coming from southern and central Palestine, who formed part of the Aramean movement from the Euphrates Valley towards the west. The higher class of nomads, who were prompted to change their location with a view to securing pasturage for their flocks, would find themselves specially attracted to Egypt in those periods, not infrequent in Palestine, ‘when the insufficiency of rain during the wintry season is sure to be followed by a drought and scarcity of food. It was such an occurrence that led some of the tribes which afterwards formed the confederation of the Israelites to pass down to Egypt, and their numbers, as appears from the form of the narrative in Exodus, were from time to time reinforced by others. In that sense we are to interpret the story which tells of Simeon and Benjamin being kept in Egypt as hostages before the others joined them there, which means simply that certain tribes reached Egypt earlier than others. The narrative in Genesis (46°°7) makes all the ‘twelve’ tribes proceed to Egypt, but we can hardly expect a reliable tradition on such a ques- tion of detail. So accustomed are the writers of a later age to regard the federation of the twelve tribes as a unit, that they project this union into the remote past, though without historical warrant for doing so. The OT writers, viewing history from the point of view of later theorists, cannot conceive of less than twelve tribes at any time, and suppose that necessarily these tribes clung to one another. We are permitted to assume that certain Hebrew groups left their Palestinian settlements to seek better pastures in Egypt, but to go further and bring all twelve tribes into the district of the Nile is unhistorical, for the sufficient reason that the federation did not exist at this time except in the mind of the OT narrator, who is so fond of gene- alogies, and attaches such importance to them that he is inclined to place, in a remote past, facts and factors which really belong to a much later age. It is not surprising, in view of the location of Egypt, thus open to invasion from two sides, that its population was of a mixed character. If one may judge from the language of Egypt, the sub- stratum of which has now been ascertained to be Semitic,* the basis of the population is likewise Semitic ; but both language and people are largely mixed with ‘ Hamitic’ elements, more particularly Libyan. This element in the course of time appears to obtain the mastery, despite the frequent Semitic immigrations into Egypt, and to such an extent indeed that both the people and the language retain but few Semitic traits.