82 RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
that the writer intends to have us take a leap over to the African coast (see Peters, Das Land Ophir, 1902, who has made out a strong case for locating Ophir in the district near the Zambesi river in southern Africa). Roughly speaking, the twofold division of the Shemites corresponds to the cus- tomary division of Arabia into Yemen and Sham (or Syria), the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ land, or, as it was mistranslated by Latin writers, Arabia Felix and Arabia Infelix. Gn 10”, where Shem is referred to as the ‘father’ of all ‘the sons of Eber,’ reveals the real sentiment underlying the genealogical lists of vv.2?° and 11°86, The two branches—the Pelegites and Joktanites—comprise those groups which, in his opinion, are genuine Shemites, the only Shemites worth speaking of according to his view, though perhaps not the only ones he knew of. The inclusion of south Arabian tribes is rather significant, and strengthens the thesis maintained at the beginning of this article, which makes central Arabia the starting-point for Semitic emigration in two directions. However this may be, it would appear that a later writer, not satisfied with this narrow scope given to the Shemites, saw fit to add as separate subdivisions Elam, Assyria, Lud, and Aram, embracing what he considered the Mesopotamian branch of the Shemites, Elam being to the east of Mesopotamia, Assyria the general term for Mesopotamia itself, Aram the designation for the district to the west of Assyria, while Lup (following upon Arpachshad) is one of the puzzlesin the chapter. The identifica- tion with Lydia is out of the question. That it may be some textual error—we-Lud being super- induced by the Arpachshad yalad of v.*~—is not impossible. If, however, the reading be accepted as correct, the most natural suggestion would be to place Lud to the north or north-east of Mesopo- tamia. The attempts to identify ARPACHSHAD have hitherto failed. Even Cheyne’s proposal (ZATW xvii. (1897) 190) to separate the term into two words, 97x (Arap=Arapcha) and ws (Kashed= Chaldza), which is the most plausible of the many suggestions offered, does not commend itself; and it would appear, indeed, that Arpachshad is no more a district than Sheba, Eber, or Peleg, but in reality only the name preserved by tradition of some ancient group to which the Eberites traced their descent. If this be so, the name is out of place in v.**, and has either been introduced by the writer, whose chief aim it was to add Elam, Assyria, and Aram as a Mesopotamian branch of Shemites to the south Arabian and Syriac - Palestinian branches, or has in reality been brought in by an error, 15) 1w250m) (v.22) being a ‘ doublet’ of 1w25 1 a> (v.33), At all events, it appears to be clear that Elam, Assyria, and Aram represent a third Shemitic branch added by some writer to the original twofold division. Of the subdivisions of Aram—Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash—Uz, though not definitely marked off, is the region of Hauran, extending, however, considerably to the south ; Masu (for which 1 Ch 17 has Meshech) may be identical with the Mons Masius between Armenia and Mesopotamia, while Hut and GETHER are altogether obscure, and it would be idle to hazard any conjectures at present.
The addition of Aram narrows still further the scope of the Pelegites, who are thus practically confined to the groups of Hebrews in Palestine and their neighbours directly to the east of the Jordan. The omission of Babylonia in this addi- tion of a Mesopotamian branch is an index to the age of the writer who added it. Not, indeed, that we are to conclude that he belongs to the period when the supremacy of Assyria over the south was so undisputed as to justify the application of ‘ Assyria’ to the northern and southern Mesopotamian dis-
RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
tricts, for, as a matter of fact, the distinction between Babylonia and Assyria was at all times maintained. The omission is intentional, and simi- larly the inclusion of Elam among the descendants of Noah’s favourite son is also dwelt upon with intent. There can be little doubt that Elam is merely another designation for Persia in the mind of the writer. The reign of Cyrus, with whom brighter times for the Judean exiles set in, was a suflicient reason for glorifying Persia at the expense of Babylonia. The writer was willing to
ermit the hated Babylon to be founded by a lemetiant of Ham, but Persia belongs to the favoured race; and Assyria, which for more than a century had been merely a name without substance, could also be magnanimously included, since con- sistency demanded that the country adjacent to Persia should belong to the same group. The writer, however, takes his revenge upon Babylonia, ignoring the name entirely and substituting that of her own hated rival Assyria, We are therefore brought down to the end of the Exile for the addition of the Mesopotamian branch of the sons of Shem. Once more we observe that ethnic affinity is an unimportant factor in the grouping— geographical proximity counts first, and natural preferences and dislikes second. Still, in the case of the ‘sons of Shem’ as in that of the Japhethites, it so happens that all those enumerated go together ethnically. With the exception of the Elamites, who are Aryans, the members of all three branches of Shemites are also to be grouped as subdivisions of a single race, only that it must be borne in mind that not all the subdivisions are enumerated ; and that some which unquestionably belong here, e.g. the Canaanites with their numerous branches, are to be found in the Hamitic division, while some of those in the Japhethite group, not yet definitely identified, may likewise turn out to be members of the Shemitic race. See also following article.