THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
in the attempt to decipher which P Jensen is particularly engaged, and he thinks he can discover in the Hittites the forerunners of the Armenians. The Egyptians call the Hit-
7. The tites Hata, the Assyrians call them Hittites. Haiti. Old Testament passages locate
them in North Syria in close connection with the Arameans (I Kings x. 29) and II Kings vii.
6 associates them with the Syrian kingdom of Muzri (according to Winckler, misread " Egypt," see Assyria, VI., 2, 3, § 7). And the Table of Nations in Gen. x. 15 with its context leaves no doubt that the intention was to locate them in North Syria. The Hittites in the service of David (I Sam. xxvi. 6; II Sam. xi. 3) were probably soldiers of fortune who had come south. Some few Old Testament passages coincide with the late Assyrian usage and speak of the land far south as Hittite. See Hittites.
The Hivites are associated with the Amorites in the LXX. text of Isa. xvii. 9 (cf. R. V. margin), but, apart from the stereotyped formulas mentioned above, seldom appear in Scripture. II Sam. xxiv.
7 locates them among the Canaanites dwelling
south of Tyre. According to Judges
8. The iii. 3, cf. Josh. xi. 3, their country Hivites. was in Lebanon between " Baal-he r-
mon and the entering in of Hamath." Josh. xi. 3 is not in accord with II Sam. xxiv. 7, and it does not lighten the difficulty to substitute Hittites for Hivites.
The Horites according to Gen. xxxvi. 30 inhabited Mt. Seir, that is the district east and west of the valley (the wadi Arabah) south of the Dead
Sea. They were destroyed by the
9. The Edomites (Deut. ii. 12, 22). Gen. Horites. xxxvi. 20-30 counts seven branches
of the Horites. Gen. xiv. 6 assigns to them the mountain east of the wadi Arabah. Nowadays the custom prevails to connect them with the people named Haru by the Egyptians, who mean by it South Palestine.
The Perizzites are seldom mentioned except in the stereotyped formulas; in three J passages, Gen. xiii. 7, xxxiv. 30; Judges i. 4, they are 10. The associated with the Canaanites, and Perizzites. in Josh. xvii. 15 with the Rephaim, " Giants." The last passage would make of them pre-Canaanites, for which the J passages give no occasion, but locate them about Bethel, Shechem, and Bezek, within the boundaries of the Joseph territory.
The Geshurites are in Deut. iii. 14; Josh. xii. 5,
xiii. 11, 13 placed in the Aramaic district of Geshur,
in the northern part of the Jaulan
11. The Ge- east of the Jordan; but Josh. xiii.
shurites. 2 and I Sam. xxvii. 8 locate them
in southern Philistia. Since Well-
hausen, the last passage has been made to read
" Gezerites " instead. But it must be concluded
that the name Geshurites was applied to nomads
in southern Palestine. Besides the foregoing there
appear the Girgashites (Gen. x. 16, etc.), to be
connected, perhaps, with names known to be Phe-
nifian; the Awim (Deut. ii. 23; Josh. xiii. 3),
whose residence was south of Gaza; and the
Kadmonites (Gen. xv. 19), of whom nothing is known.
The conquest of Canaan by the Hebrews was rendered easy by several circumstances. The overlordship of the Egyptians became about 1250 B.C. a mere name. Moreover, about 1400 B.C., according to the Amarna Tablets (q.v.), a people called the Habiri had crossed the Jordan westward, partly because the chiefs there were employing them as soldiers and partly to better their lot. These, related to the Israelites, were indeed their predecessors along the same 12. The route, who by establishing themselves Conquest gave the invitation to others to settle by the there. But the light-armed Israel- Hebrews, ites, who established themselves in the more open country, had a more difficult task against the Canaanites armed with iron weapons and chariots of the same material. The assault of the Hebrews was not made with their united force and at one time, as the narrative in Joshua asserts, but in two divisions, and not at the same time. The first attack was made by Simeon, Levi, and Judah, the second by the Joseph tribes under the leadership of Joshua (Judges i. 1- 3, 22). A series of victories, reported in Josh, ii.-x., made it possible for the Joseph tribes to settle between Bethel and the Plain of Jezreel. According to the first part of Joshua, the Hebrews put the ban on the Canaanites, i.e., exterminated them. But this does not agree with other statements. While indeed those foes were perhaps exterminated who were taken in actual contest, the universal application of the ban does not accord with many other passages of Scripture. The Canaanites were pressed back; progress in possession was made partly by subjecting the earlier inhabitants, partly by peaceful means. In the former case the Canaanites became slaves; in the latter, union of stocks was brought about. The victory at Taanach under Deborah and Barak assured to the Hebrews the control of the Plain of Jezreel. The northern districts of Naphtali and Asher retained their non- Israelitic population (see Galilee). The southern stock of Judah in time allied itself with many peoples of alien race (see Caleb, Calebites, and cf. Gen. xxxviii.). The remainder of the non-Hebraic population was put to service by Solomon.
It is this reduction of the Canaanites to servitude which is at the basis of the narrative in Gen. ix. 20-27, which deals with Noah and his three sons. Wellhausen has made it plain that in ix. 22 the words " Ham the father of " are an intrusion by the editor to bring the section into harmony with its context. Canaan is the younger brother who is there subjected to his brethren. Shem no doubt, in the passage, means Israel, and Japhet the Phenicians, and Shem and Japhet are both ruling peoples. Canaan's position in the Table of Nations (q.v.) is quite other than that in Gen. ix. 20-27.
(H. Guthe.)
Bibliography: K. Budde, Die biblische Urgesekichte, Giessen, 1883; A. H. Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, London, 1891 (brief, needs bringing up to date); idem, The ' Higher Criticism ' and the Monuments, ib. 1894; idem, Patriarchal Palestine, ib. 1895 (the last two books are damaged by their polemic aim); G. F. Moore, in JAOS,