4. The argimient from the order of the names is
SHEM
650
SHEMA
amply refuted (as above) by the analogous cases of Arphaxad (Gen. xi, ■22), Abraham (ver. 27), and, indeed, almost every other patriarch. They were arranged in the order of proximity and importance to the Hebrews. Among the arguments on the other side, we may note —
a. The chronological point is irrefragable, except by the evasion above noticed.
b. The position of the words, although ambiguous, certainly allows the construction of the Authorized Ver- sion. We append a few instances of the same adj. qual- ifying a noun after a construct :
Numb. XXXV, 28, bis ^"IJ'!! Iv^S'!! ^^"3
Josh. XX, 6 the s<anie.
isa. xxxvi, 13 bnjH T^b-sn I'ln^
Ezek.xlvii,9 bnjn C^H n5^
Dan.x,4 bnsn nn-H "T^
Had the word !nS|^ preceding the qualifying adj. in the passage in question not been a proper name, it would iiave taken the article, as in these instances, and thus all ambiguity would have been avoided. An ijistance strictly parallel is Ezek. xxi, 14 [Heb. 19], b'bn 2"in >"15n, where the adj., being masc, must belong to the second noun, though neither has the art. Others simi- lar doubtless occur, if not with ^13 or "p]^, yet with other adjectives.
c. Had the sacred writer intended the adj. in the passage in question to apply to the last noun, he could scarcely have expressed his meaning in anj'' other way than he has. On the other hand, had he meant it to refer to the former, he would undoubtedly have added !i:T2'3,asin Judg.i, 13; iii, 9 (!l2X3p "pisn nbs IPIX), which are the only strictly parallel cases of usage un- der that view (the adj. being "|-p, however, instead of h'li.). Judg. ix, 5 ("ibpri b"2"i7"")3) is not a case in point, as there could be no ambiguity there.
d. The Masoretic accents are clearly for the old rendering. In all the above instances the adj. is con- nected by a conjunctive with the noun immediately preceding, and the first noun (though in the construct) is separated by a disjunctive. In cases of the other con- struction the reverse interpunction prevails invariably, so far as we have examined. The autliority of the Masorites countervails that of all modern scholars, most of whom seem to have given the subject but a cursory examination. The criticism of Keil (^Commentary on the Pentateuch, i, 156, Clark's ed.) is particularly lame. Jose- phus (^Ant. i, 6, 4) calls " Shem the third son of Noah," but elsewhere (i, 4, 1) he names them iu a different order, that of relative familiarity (" Shem and Japheth and Ham"). As to the other ancient versions, as above noted, the Sept. (the translator of which in this part was a good Hebraist) refers the adj. to Japheth, al- though some printed editions have it otherwise, in order to correspond with the Vulg., which reflects the Jewish national pride. The Samaritan, Syriac, and Arabic of course follow the Vulgate, but the Targnm of Onkelos has " the brother of Japheth the great." Schelling, whom Rosenmiiller (as above) refers to [Repei'torium, etc. [1785], xvii, 8 sq.), thinks that the lists in Gen. only '•mean that Noah had passed his five hundredth year before he had any heir, since in any case the three sons could not have been all born iu tlie same year, to which they are all equally assigned ; and that therefore only the round number or approximate date is given" (p. 20).
e. The reason wliy tlie sacred writer adds the epithet "elder" brother to the name of Japheth, is precisely to prevent the inference that would otherwise naturally be drawn from the continual mention of Shem first in the lists elsewhere, that he was fhe oldest son, and to explain why the names are here inverted. In the pres- ent chapter, however, as usual in detailed genealogies (1 Chron. i, 29 sq. ; ii, 1 sq., 42; iii, I sq., etc.), the strict order of primogeniture is observed. Had Shem been the oldest, there seems to be no good reason why in this
pedigree the same order should not have been observed as elsewhere. Kosenmllller's remark that this was done " in order that the transition from the lineage of Shem to the history of Abraham might be more easy," does n<jt apply; for the next chapter begins with an account of the Tower of Babel, which is neither Abrahamic nor Shemitic historj' in particular, but rather Hamitic (see ver. 10) ; so that this list of Shem's descendants is thrust in between two portions of Ham's history — arbitrarily, unless for the sake of chronological order.
She'nia (Heb. in three forms, Shema', STj'i", Josh. XV, 26; She' ma, S'^Tl;" ; elsewhere, except "in pause," Sha'ma, S'"0113, 1 Chron. ii, 43 — all meaning rumor; Sept. "^ajxa, v. r. "^afiaa, SaX^uaa, 'S.afiataQ, etc.), the name of four men and of one place.
1. Last named of the four sons of Hebron, and father of Raham, descendants of Caleb, great-grandson of Jiidah (1 Chron. ii, 43, 44). B.C. ante 1658.
2. A Benjamite, son of Elpaal. and one of the heads of the fathers of the inhabitants of Aijalon, who drove out the inhabitants of Gath (1 Chron. viii, 13). B.C. post 1618. He is probably the same as Shimhi (ver. 21).
3. Son of Joel and father of Azaz, among the Reu- benite chiefs (1 Chron. v, 8). B.C. ante 1090. Perhaps the same with Shemaiah (q. v.) of ver. 4. See Jokl 2.