(II.) Having thus surveyed the ethnological state- ments contained in the Bible, it remains for us to inquire how far they are based on, or accord with, physiological or linguistic principles. Knobel maintains that the threefold division of the Jlosaic table is founded on the physiological principle of color, Shem, Ham, and Ja- plieth representing respectively the red, black, and white complexions prevalent in the different regions of the then known world {Volkert. p. 11-13). He claims etymological support for this view in respect to Ham (—""dark") and Japheth ( = "fair"), but not in respect to Shem •, and he adduces testimony to the fact that such differences of color were noted in ancient times. The etymological argument weakens rather than sustains his view; for it is difficult to conceive that the princi- ple of classification would be embodied in two of the names, and not also in the third : the force of such evi- dence is wholly dependent upon its uniformity. With regard to the actual prevalence of the hues, it is quite consistent with the physical character of the districts that the Hamitesof the south should be dark, and the Ja- phethites of the north fair, and, further, that the Shem- ites should hold an intermediate place in color as in geographical position. But we have no evidence that this distinction was strongly marked. The "redness" expressed in the name Edom probably referred to the soil (Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 87) : the Erythrceum Mare was so called from a peculiarity in its own tint, arising from the presence of some vegetable substance, and not because the red Shemites bordered on it, the black Cushites being equally numerous on its shores : the name Adam, as applied to the Shemitic man, is ambig- uous, from its reference to soil as well as color. On the other hand, the Phrenicians (assuming them to have
TONGUES, CONFUSION OF 474 TONGUES, CONFUSION OF
reached the ^rediterranean soaboanl before the table was compiled) were so called from their red hue, and vet are placed in the table among the Hamites. The argument drawn from the red hue of the Egyptian de- itv Tvphon is of litrle value until it can be decisively ]>roved that the deity in question represented the Shem- it.ef!. This is asserted by Kenan {/Jist. Gen. i, 38), who endorses Knobel's view so far as the Shemites'are con- cerned, though he does not accept his general theory.
The linguistic difficulties connected with the Mosaic table are very considerable, and we cJinnot pretend to unravel the tangled skein of contlicling opinions on the subject. The primary difficulty arises out of the Bibli- cal narrative itself, and is consequently of old standing — the difficulty, namely, of accounting for the evident identity of language spoken by the Shemitic Terachites and the HamiticCanaanites. Alodern linguistic research has rather enhanced than removed this difficulty. The alternatives hitherto ottered as satisfactory solutions — namely, that the Terachites adopted the language of the Canaanites, or the Canaanites that of the Terach- ites— are both inconsistent with the enlarged area which the language is found to cover on each side. Setting aside the question of the high improbability that a wan- dering nomadic tribe, such as the Terachites, would be able to impose its language on a settled and powerful nation like the Canaanites, it would still remain to be explained how the Cushites and other Ilamiti* tribes, who did not come into contact with the Terachites, ac- (juired the same general type of language. On the other band, assuming that what are called Shemitic languages were really Hamitic, we have to explain the extension of the Hamitic area over iNIesopotamia and Assyria, which, according to the table and the general opinion of ethnologists, belonged wholly to a non-Ham- itic population. A further question, moreover, arises out of this ex|)lanation, viz.. What was the language of the Terachites before thej' assumed this Hamitic tongue? This question is answered by J. (1. Midler, in Herzog's lleal-Enqiklop. xiv, 238, to the effect that the Shemites originally spoke an Indo-European language — a view which we do not expect to see generally adopted.
Restricting ourselves, for the present, to the linguistic cpiestion, we must draw attention to the fact that there is a well-define<l Hamitic as well as a Shemitic class of languages, and that any theory which obliterates this distinction must fall to the ground. The Hamitic type is most highly developed, as we miglit expect, in the country which was, jkv excellence, the land of Ham, viz. Egypt; and whatever elements of original unity with the Shemitic type may be detected by philolo- gists, practically the two were as distinct from each other in historical times as any two languages could possibly be. We are not therefore prepared at once to throw overboard the linguistic element of the Jlosaic table. At the same time, we recognise the extreme dif- ticulty of explaining the anomaly of Hamitic tribes speaking a Shemitic tongue. It will not suffice to say, in answer to this, that these tribes were Shemites; for again the correctness of the Jlosaic table is vindicated by the ditfcrences of social and artistic culture which distinguish the Shemites proper from the PhcEuicians and (Jushi^es using a Shemitic tongue. The former are characterized by habits of simplicity, isolation, and adherence to patriarchal ways of living and thinking: the Phoenicians, on the other hand, were eminently a commercial peojde ; and the Cushites are identified with the massive architectural erections of Babylonia and South Arabia, and with equally extended ideas of em- )pire and social progress.