(c.) The Jebusite, of Jebns or Jerusalem.
(d.) The Amorite, frequently mentioned in Biblical history.
(c.) The Girgasite, the same as the Girgashites.
(/.) The Hivite, variously explained to mean the oc- cupants of the "interior'' (Ewald), or the dwellers in "villages" (Gesenius).
(ff.) The Ai'kite, i)i' Area, north of Tripolis, at the foot of Lebanon.
(h.) The Sinite, of Sin or Sinna, places iu the Leba- non district.
(t.) The Arvadite, of .-I radiis on the coast of Phoenicia.
(.)'.) The Zemarite, of simiira on the Eleuthenis.
{k.) The ILimiithite, of llainath, the classical Kpipha- nia, on the Oroulcs.
3. The Shemitic list contains twenty-six names, of which tive refer to iiulependenc and the remainder to atfiliated tribes, as follows :
(i.) Elam, the tribe Elymcei and the district Elymais iu
Susiaua. (ii.) Asshur, Assyria between the Tigris and the range of
Zagrus. <iii.) Arphaxad, Arrapachitis, in Northern Assyria, with whom are associated : (a.) Salah, a personal and also a geographical title, indicating a migration of the people represented by him ; Salah's son. (6.) Eber, representing geograjihically the district across (i. e. eastward of) the Euphrates ; and Eber's , two sons.
(c.) Peleg, a personal name indicating a "division"
of this branch of the Shemitic family, and (rf.) Joktan, representing generally the inhabitants of Arabia, with the following thirteen sons of Joktan, viz.: (a.) Almodad, probably representing the tribe of Jur/iJim near Mecca, whose leader was named Miidad. (b.) Sheleph, the Snlapeni in Yemen. <c.) Hazarmaveth, Hadramaut in Southern Arabia, (d.) Jerah. (e. ) Hadoram, the Adramitce on the southern
coast, in a district of Hadramaut. (f._) Uzal, supposed to represent the town Ssanaa in South Arabia, as liaviug been founded by A sal. (g.) Diklah.
(h.) Obal, or, as in I Chron. i, 22, Ebal, which lat- ter is identilied by Kuobel with the Gebanitcn in the south-west, (i.) Abimael, doubtfully connected with the dis- trict Mahra, eastward of Hadramaut, and with the towns Mara and Mali. (j.) Sheba, the Sabcei of South-western Arabia,
about Mariaba. (k.) Ophir, probably Adane, on the southern coast,
but see article. (1.) Ilavilah, the district Khauh'tn in the north- west of Yemen, (m.) Jobab, possibly the Jobaritce of Ptolemy (vi, I, 24), for which Jobabilce may originally have stood. (iv.) Lnd, irenerally compared with Ludia, but explained by Knobel as referring to the varioiis aboriginal tribes in and about Palesiine, such as the Amalekites, Kepha- ites, Emiin, etc. We cannot consider cither of these views as well established. Lydia itself lay beyond the horizon of the Mosaic table ; as to the Shemitic ori- gin of its population, conflicting opinions are enter- tained, to which we shall have occasion to advert here- after. Knobel's view has in its favor the probabilitv that the tribes referred to would be represented in the table ; it is, however, wholly devoid of historical con- firmation, with the exception of an Arabian traditicm that .A7nlik was one of the sons of Laud or Lawad, the son of Sliem. (v.) Arum, the general name for Si/ria and Northern Meiiopotamia, wilh whom the following are associated: (a.) Uz, probably the jl-lsitm of Ptolemy. (6.) Hnl, doubtful, but best connected with the name Huleh, attaching to a district north of Lake Meroin.
(c.) Gether, not identified.
(rf.) Mash, Masius Mons, in the north of Mesopotamia.
There is yet one name noticed in the table, viz. Phi- listim, which occurs in the Ilaniitic divisicui, hut with- out any direct assertion of llainitic descent. The terms used in the A. V., "out of whom (Casluhim) came Phi- listim"(ver. 14), would naturally imply descent, but the Hebrew text only warrants the conclusion that the Phi- listines sojourned in the Land of the Casluhim. Not- withstanding this, we believe the intention of the au- thor of the table to have been to affirm the ILiraitic origin of the Philistines, leaving undecided the partic- ular branch, whether Casluhim or- Caphtorim, with which it was more immediately connected.
The total number of names noticed in tlie table, in- cluding Philistim, would thus amount to seventy-one, which was raised by patristic writers to seventy-two. These totals afforded scope for numerical comparisons, and also for an estimate of the number of nations and languages to be found on the earth's surface. It is need- less to say that the Bible itself furnishes no ground for such calculations, inasmuch as it does not, in any case, specify the numbers.
b. Before proceeding further, it would be well to dis- cuss a question materially affecting the historical value of the Mosaic table, viz. the period to which it refers. On this point very various opinions are entertained. Knobel, conceiving it to represent the commercial ge- ography of the Phoenicians, assigns it to about B.C. 1200 {Volkert. p, 4-9), and Kenan supports this view {HUt. Gen. i, 40), while others allow it no higher an an- tiquity than the period of the Babylonian captivity (Von Bolilen, Cra. ii, 207; Winer, 7?c'«/«'. ii, 665). Internal evidence leads us to refer it back to the age of Abraham on the following grounds; (1.) The Canaanites were as yet in undisputed possession of Palestine. (2.) The Phi- listines had not concluded their migration. (3.) Tyre is wholly unnoticed, an omission which cannot be satis- factorily accounted for on the ground that it is included under the name either of Heth (Knobel, p. 323) or of Sidon (Von Bohlen, ii, 241). (4.) Various places, such as Simyra, Sinna, and Area, are noticed which had fallen into insignificance in later times. (6.) Kittim, which iu the age of Solomon was under Phoenician dominion, is assigned to Japheth, and the same may be said of Tarshish, which in that age undoubtedly referred to the Phoenician emporium of Tartessus, whatever may have been its earlier significance. The chief objection to so early a date as we have ventured to propose is the no- tice of the jNIedes under the name Madai. The Aryan nation which bears this name in liistory appears not to have reached its final settlement until about B.C. 900 (Rawlinson, Herod, i, 404). But, on the other hand, the name Media may well have belonged to the district before the arrival of the Aryan Medes, whether it were occupied bj' a tribe of kindred origin to them or by Turanians; and this probability is, to a certain extent, confirmed by the notice of a Median dynastj' in Babylon, as reported by Berosus, so early as the 25th century B.C. Qibld, i, 434). Little difficulty would be found in assigning so early a date to the Medes if the Aryan origin of the allied kings mentioned in Gen. xiv, 1 were thoroughly established, in accordance with Kenan's view (/list. 6'e«. i, 61): on this point, however, we have our doubts. See Genesis.