THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
stria. Since Bochart Arphaxad has been identified
with the district of Arrhapachitis of Ptolemfflus
(VI., i. 2) on the Upper Zab, the Armenian Aghbak
and Kurdish Albak. But the last
7. Shem. consonants remain unexplained by this name, and the identification has by many been given up; Cheyne and Jensen compound the word of 'rpd and ksd, the first part being (Cheyne and Winckler) the Assyrian city and province of Arabha west of Elam and between the Tigris and the Median mountains; Jensen retains the early explanation. Hommel explains the name as equivalent to " Ur of the Chaldees " in Gen. xi. 28. Lud is generally accepted as the Lydians of Asia Minor, who were subjected by the Persians under Cyrus in 546 b.c. Here again is shown the fact that language does not govern the arrangement, since the Lydians did not use a Semitic language. If language were considered, Elam and Lud would not be found among the Semitic peoples. An eas1>towest arrangement of lands and peoples does not appear if verse 23 is taken into account. With Elam and Lud the Hebrews were not acquainted till late, with Lud probably not till the conquest by the Persians in the sixth century. Lud may be a portion of the Persian kingdom, and the governing consideration here may be political relations. That the regions and stocks known to early Israel are not named here may be due to the lateness of the author, the older groups of the Arameans having been lost. The name Shem is often brought into connection with the Hebrew Shem, " name," " repute," and explained as an abbreviation for Bene Shem, " noble race." Others prefer the meaning " high," as deriving the race from a heaven-god or as referring to the lofty homeland of Semites. Yet none of these is entirely satisfactory.
The field of vision of P is quite extensive; it reaches in the north the sources of the Euphrates and the Black Sea, in the west the Straits of Gibraltar, in the south the present Nubia and South Arabia, and in the east Elam and Media. J shows exact geographical knowledge of South Arabia. The larger horizon of P speaks in gen- 8. General eral for the later date of that document,
Review, though use of older sources is not excluded. Verses 20 and 31 are clear in their expression of the fact that the editor has united under his three groups not only diverse stocks, lands, and peoples, but also diverse languages; consequently the basis of division is not to be sought in linguistic relationship or in diversity of ethnical relationship. While the modern distinction into Semitic and Hamitic languages goes back to this chapter, there is a similar product of comparative linguistics which does not derive its standards from antiquity. The proposition has been advanced that a geographical view-point governed the writer, that Japheth represents the peoples of the north, Ham those of the south, and Shem those between; but in that case why are Elishah and Tarshish under Japheth, Canaan under Ham, the distant Lud under Shem? Moreover, J would not have put the South Arabian tribes under Shem if he had seen in the Semites the peoples of the mid-
dle region. In details and incidentally, geographical considerations did govern. But it seems forbidden if one would understand the arrangement of peoples and lands, to regard P, still more than J, as governed by historical and political relationships. Strictly scientific principles do not appear; the geographical or the historical view-point is used as one or the other seems best to P. Hence on political grounds Lud is placed under Shem, on geographical grounds the peoples of Asia Minor generally are placed under Japheth. He may have been governed, also, by reports or legends regarding the derivation of the nations. We can not follow the learned of early times, because our science and theirs seldom coincide, indeed often conflict. This " table of nations " can not be regarded as a complete review of all the nations known to Israel or of all the peoples of the world, although this was the view of Jewish and Christian scholars who saw in the list seventy peoples, thirty-four in P and thirty-six in J. But apart from the artificiality of the number, the most that could be said is that the redactor who united the sources had this number in mind, and even that does not appear probable. For an estimate of the whole it is essential to keep completely within the view the analysis of the chapter; and on this account the data of the " table of nations " do not fit on one chart.
In its present connection the " table " serves as the bridge from the universal history of mankind to the history of the patriarchs of Israel. All men go back in origin to Noah and Adam (Gen. i. 26, ix. 6; cf. Job xxxi. 15); but the history of these people is not that of the salvation which God is preparing for mankind. That salvation begins with the patriarchs of Israel, through whose mediation the blessing is to come upon all peoples (Gen. xii. 2-3). This connection belongs to P, possibly also to the compilation of J, but whether to the original J is doubtful. (H. Guthe.)
Bibliography: The earliest interpretations are to be found in Josephus, Ant., I., vi.; and the Book of Jubilees, viii.ix., Eng. transls. by G. H. Schodde, Oberlin, 1888, and by R. H. Charles, London, 1902. The chief modern material is in the commentaries on Genesis (named under Hexateuch), best by S. R. Driver, London, 1904, and J. Skinner, ib., 1910. Consult further: A. Knobel, Die Volkertafel der Genesis, Giessen, 1850; P. de Lagarde, Gcsammelte Abhandlungen, pp. 254 sqq., Gottingen, 1866; De Goeje, in ThT, iv (1870), 233 sqq.; D. Chwolson, Die scmitischen Viilker, Berlin, 1872; F. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradiesf Leipsic, 1881; F. Hommel, Die semitischen Viilker und Sprachen, ib. 1883; idem, Die altisraelitische U eberlieferung in inschriftlicher Beleuchtung, Munich, 1897; J. Halevy. in Reviie des etudes juives, xiii (1886), 147 sqq.; E. Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabie"s, ii. 323 sqq., 387 sqq., Berlin, 1890; A. H. Sayce, Races of the 0. T ., London, 1891; idem. The "Higher Criticism" and the Monuments, ib. 1894; W. M. Miiller, A-tien und Europa nach altagyptischen Denkmdlern, Leipsic, 1893; H. Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, ib. 1893 sqq.; idem, Die Viilker Vorderasiens, ib. 1902; idem, in Schrader, KAT; A. Jeremias, Das A. T. im Lichte des alten Orients, 2d ed., Leipsic, 1906; A. R. Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis, Edinburgh, 1907; M. E. Kern, The Distribution of the Races; a Commentary on Gen. x.. College View, Neb., 1907; DB, extra vol., pp. 72-83.
TABOO. See Comparative Religion, VI., 1, c. TABOR LIGHT. See Hesychasts. TABOR, MOUNT. See Palestine II., § 6.