* Gebal, Damascus, and Helbon also occur in ch. 27, but as names merely of cities, and need not therefore be taken into consideration. So Zidon (278) is covered by Canaan and by Tyre in Gn 10.
from the fact that an
SEMITES 33 | group. The distribution being controlled largel
by the geographical factor, it was not to boven: pected that this should be the case, quite apart ancient writer could hardly be expected to have the ethnological attainments
required for such a method of rouping. As a conspectus, however, of races known to the Hebrews, largely through contact and in part
through learned tradition, the tenth chapter of Genesis not only retains its intrinsic value, but Serves as an indispensable aid in supplementing the ethnological material, furnished incidentally by the narrative which follows the remarkable history of the Hebrews, from the early time of the departure of the first group from ‘the Euphrates Valley through the nomadic period, with its frequent changes of residence, on to the conquest of Pales- tine and the growth of the federation of Hebrew tribes into a nation in the full sense of the word, with a distinct political organization, down to the political decline and fall of this people, which sur- vived in a strange way even the loss of national independence.
LITERATURE, —Sayce, The Races of the Old Testament, London, 1891, also ‘ White Race of Ancient Palestine’ (Lepositor, July, 1888); Ndldeke, Die semitischen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1887, see also his art. ‘Semitic Languages’ in Encye. Brit.9; Chwolson, Die semitischen Volker, Berlin, 1872; Renan, Hist. générale et systeme comparé des langues sémit.5, Paris, 1878; Hommel, Die semitischen Volker und Sprachen, Leipzig, 1883 ; W. M. Flinders Petrie, Racial Types from Egypt (London, 1887); G. A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (New York, 1902); Brinton and Jastrow, The Cradle of the Semites (Phil. 1891); A. Knobel, Die Votkertafel der Genesis (Giessen, 1850) ; de Goeje, ‘ Het tiende Hoofdstuck van Genesis (TAT iv. (1870) 241f.); Merx, art. ‘Voelkertafel’ in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon (bibliographical refer- ences]; Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens (Berlin, 1890), chs. xxiv._xxxi.; E. Schrader, Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung (Giessen, 1878), COT (2 vols. London, 1885-88), KAT'®, pt. i. ‘Gesch. u. Geogr.’ by H. Winckler (Berlin, 1902); Fried. Delitzsch, Wo Lag das Paradies ? (Leipzig, 1881) ; Commentaries on Gn10 by Dillmann, Delitzsch, Holzinger, Strack, Ball, Gunkel; and the introductory chapters to the History of the Hebrews by Ewald, Guthe, Stade, Piepenbring, etc. ; compare also the identifications in Rabbinical literature of the nations mentioned in Gn 10 as put together by Neubauer, La géographie du Talmud, Paris, 1868, pp. 421-424 ; Epstein, ‘Les Chamites de la Table Ethnographique selon le pseudo-Jonathan’ (REJ xxiv. 82-98); S. Krauss, ‘Die Biblische Vélkertafel in Talmud, Midrasch, and Targum’ (Monatsschriftf. d. Wissensch att des Judenthums, xxxix. [two articles]), ‘Zur Zahl der biblischen Volkerschaften’ (Z47W xx. [1900], pp. 38-43); see also the separate articles on the different races mentioned in this article,
MorRRIs JASTROW, JR.
SEMITES.—The term Semite (Shemite), forming the adjective Semitic (Shemitic), is derived from the patriarch Shem, who in the Bk. of Genesis is named as the ancestor of most of the peoples known to ethnologists and now popularly designated as ‘Semites.? The account of Shem and his descend- ants in Gn 10 is partly genealogical and partly geographical, and does not exactly correspond to a scientific classification. Hence we take the family tree of Genesis as the starting-point of our inquiry rather than as an exhaustive summary. None the less, any description or discussion of the Semites as a whole must have chiefly a biblical interest, and that for two main reasons. In the first place, the actors in and makers of Bible his- tory were Semites, who did their deeds and said their say within the Semitic realm. Further, the truth of God, as it is revealed in the Bible, was not merely conveyed to the world through an out- ward Semitic channel; it was moulded in Semitic minds, coloured by the genius of Semitic speech, and put to the proof for the education of the world in Semitic hearts and lives. It is perhaps enough in this connexion to remind the reader that Moses, David, Elijah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, St. John, St. Paul, and the Son of Man Himself, were Semites. The religious and moral significance of the race thus indicated may be further illustrated by citing the fact that Tiglath-pileser, Nebuchad- rezzar, and Hannibal are the only Semites of the
84 SEMITES
ee a ee LS ee
SEMITES
sO ee
pre-Christian time whose names stand for world- moving achievements outside the realm of religion and morals.
The principal list of the descendants of Shem appearsin Gn 102-8, This whole table proceeds from one source, J, except that, according to the critics, y.%, which gives a list of the sons of Shem, belongs to P. These immediate descendants are Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. Of these names the third and fourth are unfortunately obscure, and it would be unprofitable to discuss here the various explanations that have been offered. Lud is generally supposed to stand for Lydia; but the reason for such an enormous interval of separation from the .other Semitic peoples is far to seek. Possibly this brief word (nS from 15) very early underwent some change, and does not represent the original. It is almost certain that this is the case with Arpachshad, since the latter half of the word is the stem of Kasdim (but see p. 82%), the Heb. word for Chaldeans, who lived in Lower Babylonia. The whole word, thus assumed to be modified in MT, would natur- ally stand for a portion of the territory to the NW, of the Persian Gulf.* The first in the list, Elam, though historically non-Semitic, must have had many Semitic immigrants. <Asshur is the well-known people and country of Assyria. The last named of the sons of Shem is Aram, that is, the Aramzans. The sons of Aram are next enumerated (v.23). Thereafter the interest is con- centrated upon the progeny of Arpachshad. His grandson is Hber, who is not only the ancestor of the Hebrews, as is fully detailed by P in ch. 11, but also of the Arabs (107°%), We may now attempt a present-day view of the descendants of Shem, referring to any of the lists of Genesis as occasion demands, and thus working back from the known facts of modern research instead of attempting to work downward from the indistinct hints of tradition.