RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
writer of Gn 10 has but vague notions regarding racial affinities of nations, whereas his geographi- cal views are quite clear and definite. Still it so happens that Asia Minor, from the western coast far into the interior, was at an early date the seat of Aryan settlements, and in the 7th cent. the greater portion of the population belonged in all probability to the Aryan group of races.
2. The ‘sons of Ham,’ as the second division, embrace the races of the south, so far as known to the Hebrews, CusH being Ethiopia, Mizraim the equivalent of Egypt, while the evidence which identifies PuT with Libya—so already Josephus— is still the most satisfactory available. At the same time, it would appear from the passage in Is 66 (above referred to) as well as from other evidence (see Winckler, Altor. Forschungen, i. p. 513, note), that there was another country, Put, situated near Lydia, and designating probably some island or group of islands in the Aigean Sea. In most of the passages in the prophetical books in which Put is mentioned, it is this region and not the Put of Gn 106 which is meant. The introduction of CANAAN at this point and the grouping with the ‘Hamites’ is not to be taken as an indication that in the mind of the writer the Canaanites came from thesouth. The mention is due to the hostility which existed between the Hebrews and Canaanites, and which prompted the writer, in obedience to popular prejudices, to place the Canaanites with the ‘accursed’ race. The same spirit is responsible for the insertion (vv.®!2), which places the Babylonians and Assyrians—whose ulti- mate control of Palestine was already imminent at the time when the section was written—also with the sons of the ‘accursed’ son of Noah, though it is possible that the confusion of Cush= Ethiopia with the Cosszeans (a people to the north-east of Babylonia), may have been a factor also in bring- ing about this result. As offshoots of Cush, there are mentioned Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabteca, and as offshoots of Raamah again, Sheba and Dedan. Of these seven districts, Havilah and Sheba and Dedan can be fixed with sufficient definiteness to form starting-points for the general determination of the rest. HlAViLAH is certainly some district in Arabia—probably on the western coast,—SHEBA is a portion of southern Arabia, while DEDAN, to judge from the juxtaposition with Tema in central Arabia (Jer 25%, Ezk 251), must be sought in the interior of Arabia, extend- ing considerably towards the north. The remain- ing names appear likewise to have been designations for other portions of the Arabian peninsula, more
articularly the western and south-western sections.
nless we assume that the tradition is utterly without foundation, we must perforce conclude that Cushites settled in large numbers on the western coast of Arabia from the southern ex- tremity to a point considerably north. Similarly, in the subdivisions of Egypt (vv.** 14) the certainty that the LEHABIM are Libyans, and that PATHROS is Upper Egypt, justifies the conclusion that the NAPHTUHIM and CASLUHIM are to be sought in northern Africa, even though the precise iden- tification is still doubtful. The introduction of the Philistines in v.* is, without much question, a gloss which has been inserted into the text at the wrong place. It would come appropriately after the mention of the CAPHTORIM,—1.¢. probably Cretans (see above),—and the gloss itself, which connects the Philistines with Caphtor, rests upon the traditions embodied in such passages as Dt 2°, Jer 474, Am 97. There, again, the bitter hostility between the Hebrews and the Philistines appears to have been the factor which prompted the association of the Cretans and Philistines with the descendants of Hamites,
EXTRA VOL.—6
RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 81
As offshoots of the Canaanites a large number of groups are mentioned, most of which are known to us from the actual relations existing at one time or the other between them and the Hebrews. Such are the Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Hittites, while the situation of Zidon, Simyra, Hamath, and Arvad is perfectly definite. The other groups, ARKITES and SINITES, therefore belong to this same region between the Phenician coast and eastern Syria. How unimportant, in the mind of the writer, ethnological affinity is may be judged from the introduction of the HirrirEs in the form of a gloss in v.% and as an offshoot of Canaan. Whatever and wherever the Hittites were, they certainly were not closely allied to Canaanites. The name itself designates, as already intimated, a promiscuous group of peoples whose settlements at one time covered a good portion of the interior of Asia Minor, whose culture and general character have little in common with Canaanites. The importance of the Hittite settlements in Syria adjacent to the territory covered by Canaanitish groups has led to the mention of Heth, by the side of Zidon, as an offshoot of Canaan. It thus appears that the second group—the Hamites—represents a greater mixture of totally distinct races than we encoun- tered in the case of the Japhethites. Hamites, Semites, Aryans, and Turanians are thrown to- gether without any scruples.
3. The remainder of the chapter, vy.2!-%2, is taken up with the favoured group—the Shemites. It is evident from a superficial survey of the list that it cannot originally have belonged to the preceding enrolment of nations. One and the same writer would not have placed Assyria with Cushites (v.14), and a few verses later on made Assyria an offshoot of Shem (y.”). Nor is it conceivable that in one part of a document the Lydians should have been placed with Egypt (v.2*) and in another with Aram (v.”). Again (vv.%: 29), we encounter Sheba and Havilah among the sons of Shem, whereas in v.7 they are grouped with Cushites. Quite peculiar to this third section of the chapter is also the long genealogical chain—Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber, Peleg, and Joktan,—whereas, in the case of the Japhethites and Hamites, at most a double chain is furnished. The longer chain, in the case of the Shemites, suggests a relationship between this section of the tenth chapter and such a chain as is found in the eleventh chapter. Here as a matter of fact we have the ‘doublet’ of our section, for vy.1°26 present a genealogical table of Shemites introduced as a preface to the narrative of Abra- ham. Comparing these two lists, it will be found that the Shemites in the narrower sense consist of two branches which meet in the series Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber. With the latter the division begins, the Abrahamitic group tracing descent to PELEG, one of the sons of Eber, while the other branch starts with another son, JOKTAN. In Gn 1076-29 the subdivisions of Joktan are given, and the section thus complements the genealogical chain of the Pelegites in the 11th chapter. There is no difficulty in determining the region where the writer places these two branches of Shemites, or, more strictly speaking, Eberites. The descendants of Peleg are represented by the Aramean settle- ments along the Euphrates with the gradual extension of these groups into the district to both sides of the Jordan, while the Joktanites represent those who passed on to the south and west of Arabia. The situation of Sheba and Havilah has already been referred to. HAZARMAVETH is iden- tical with Hadramaut along the southern coast ; and HADORAM, UZAL, OBAL, and the rest must likewise be sought in the region of Yemen. Only in the case of the mysterious OPHIR is it possible