Races of the old testament

Scope and Definition. —It is essential to the proper treatment of a subject to determine first of all its scope. In the broad sense of the term, the races of the OT include all the peoples that are mentioned within that promiscuous compilation representing a large number of distinctive works and embracing the remains of a literature which covers a period of almost one thousand years of intellectual activity. The character of this litera- ture, as thus defined, makes it natural that the geographical horizon of the OT writers should be pee coextensive with the then existing ethno- ogical knowledge. By actual contact the Hebrews are brought into relationship with the entire group of nations settled around the Mediterranean, as well as with many inland groups to the north, east, south, and south-west of the land which became the home of the Hebrews par excellence. The early traditions and the legendary accounts of periods and personages lying beyond the confines of trustworthy knowledge, increase this number by many races of which little more than the namés have been preserved. To give an exhaustive account, therefore, of the races of the OT would involve writing a treatise on ancient ethnology. On the other hand, as ordinarily understood, the races of the OT include primarily those oples only which stand in close contiguity to he central group in the scene of OT history —the Hebrews themselves; and here, again, a further twofold division suggests itself, viz. be- tween those which belong to the more immediate ethnic group of which the Hebrews form a part, and those which lie outside of these limits. Con- fining ourselves in the main to a discussion of the theme in the narrower sense, it will meet our pur poses best to treat it under these two aspects. i. THE HEBREWS AND SEMITES. —'The group historically known as the Hebrews, and forming the confederation of tribes to which the name Béné Israel is given in the OT, forms part of a larger group known as the SEMITES. By virtue of this relationship, and in consequence of the geo- graphical distribution of the other branches of the Semites, it is to the Semitic family that the races most prominently mentioned in the OT belong. The term Semite is used both in an ethnological and in a linguistic sense. As origin- ally employed by J. G. Eichhorn at the close of the 18th century, it embraced the peoples ouped in Gn 10 as the ‘sons of Shem.’ Since, nowever, it has been ascertained that the peoples thus grouped do not belong to one race or even to allied races, the ethnological application of the term has been modified to designate a race dis- tinguished by the following features: dolicho- cephalic skulls ; curly and abundant hair ; slightly wavy or. straight strong beard, the colour pre- dominantly black; prominent nose, straight or aquiline; oval face.t t must, however, be borne in mind that the pure type is comparatively rare. At an exceed- ingly remote period the mixture of Semites with Hamites and Aryans began, so that except in the less accessible regions of central Arabia it is doubtful whether pure Semites exist at all. So pronounced has this mixture been that some investigators regard the Semites as the product of two races—a blonde and a dark race 3 but the introduction of such a division is confusing. The mixture has not been with one race but with many races, and hence it is but natural that a variety of types should have been produced. The preponeerate type, however, being dark, it is egitimate to conclude that the latter represents the original stock, and that the ‘ blonde’ Semites furnish the proof precisely of that admixture ae we know from other sources actually took ace. : Where the original home of the Semites lay is a matter of dispute, and will probably never be settled to the satisfaction of all scholars. The drift of scholarly opinion, after vacillating between southern Babylonia, the eastern confines of Africa, southern Arabia, and the interior of the Arabian eninsula, is now in favour of the latter region.t Tt is, at all events, in central Arabia that the urest Semitic type is still found, and, so far as nown, it was invariably from the interior of Arabia that the Semitic hordes poured forth to the north-east and north-west and south to estab- lish cultured States or to assimilate the cultute which they already found existing. It is in this way that we may account for the greatest of Semitic States—that of BABYLONIA and ASSYRIA in the Euphrates Valley and along the banks of the Tigris. The course of culture in Mesopotamia is from south to north, and this fact is in itself an important indication that the Semites who took possession of Babylonia came Hist.-Kritische Hinleit. in das AT (Leipzig, 1780), p. 45. t See, e.g., Brinton, Races and Peoples (New York, 1890), p 134 t For recent discussions of the various theories, see Néldeke, Die semitischen Sprachen (Leipzig, 1887), and his article ‘ Sen itic Languages’ in Encyc, Brit.2; also Brinton and Jastrow, The Cradle of the Semites (Philadelphia, 1891), where further refer- ences will be found; and more recently G. A. Barton, A Sketch of Semitic Origins (New York, 1902), ch. i. Reahatccertehial Ce riers =... ¥ ’ ancestors of the oe RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 73 from a district lying to the south of Babylonia. The Babylonians and Assyrians thus form a distinct branch of the Semites, though at the same time furnishing an illustration of the ad- mixture with other races upon which we have dwelt. The Euphrates Valley appears to have been from time immemorial a gathering-pla¢e of various nations, and, in passing, it may be noted that the Biblical legend of the confusion of tongues (Gn 11), which significantly takes place in Baby- lonia, appears to be based upon a dim recollection of this circumstance. So far as present indica- tions go, the Semites upon coming to the Euphrates Valley already found a culture in existence which, however, they so thoroughly assimilated, and on which at the same time they impressed the stamp of their peculiar personality to such an extent, as to make it substantially a Semitic product. In- deed, the presence of this earlier culture was probably the attraction which led to the Semitic invasion from the interior of Arabia, just as at a later date the Semitic civilization of the Euphrates attracted other Semitic hordes towards making a northern movement from this same region. It is among these hordes, poe out of the steppes of Arabia, and proceeding in the direction of the Euphrates Valley, that we are to seek for the ebrews. The sociological tat which began thousands of years ago is still going on at the present time, where nomadic groups, attracted by the opportuni- ties of spoil, continue to skirt the regions of culture in the East, with the result that a certain propor- tion of them are permanently gained for the cause of civilization, ae settle in culture centres. The Biblical tradition which goes back to settlements on the Euphrates—Ur and Harran (Gn 11%-3!)— finds an explanation in such a movement. Form- ing part of a nomadic invasion, the Hebrews were among those who, allured by the attractions of Babylonian culture, made settlements of a more oes character along the Euphrates, first at r and later farther north at Harran. That, how- ever, these settlements did not involve casting aside nomadic habits altogether, is shown by the Biblical tradition which records a movement of Hebrews from Ur to Harran and thence by the northern route into Palestine. The presence of an Eliezer clan of Damascus in close affiliation with Abraham (Gn 15?) and his band, points to a tem- porary settlement at Damascus on the route to the west. Once on the west of the Jordan, the Hebrews continue their semi-nomadic habits for several centuries, and it is not until the 11th cent. that this stage in their career is definitely closed. These movements of the Hebrews, as recorded in a blurred, and yet for that reason not altogether unhistorical tradition, suggest, as already pointed out, the manner in which southern Mesopotamia became a thoroughly Semitic State, the invading Semites absorbin fhe old culture (whatever that was, and whatsoever its origin may have been), and giving a new direction to the further intel- lectual, social, and religious development of the Euphrates Valley. This parallel also indicates— what is more important for our purposes—a com- mon origin for the Semites who obtained possession of Babylonia and those who, after moving up and down the western outskirts of Babylonia, entered Palestine. The testimony of language bears out this supposition, for the relationship between Hebrew and Babylonian is such as to warrant our concluding in favour of the descent of the two peoples from one common brancl: to which the name ‘ Aramean’ may be given. It is both interesting and significant to find that See Lady Anne Blunt, The Bedouin Tribes of the Huphratee (London, 1879), especially chs. xxiii. and xxiv. tradition preserves the appropriateness of this designation. On a solemn occasion, when the Hebrew, appearing before Jahweh, is to recall his ast, a formula is introduced in which he refers to 1is ancestor as ‘a stray (12k) Arameean’ (Dt 26°), 1, The ARAMHAN branch of the Semites thus assumes large dimensions. Besides the Babylonians and Assyrians and Hebrews, it includes the Semites who settled in Syria as well as the groups of Moabites and Ammonites settled on the east side of the Jordan, while the Phenicians settled on the Mediterranean coast constitute another Aramzean division or offshoot. Of the relationship existing’ between Hebrews and Babylonians we have already spoken. When the early contact in the Euphrates district began, of which Biblical tradition preserves a faint recollection, it is impossible to say; nor must it be supposed that the Hebrews at the time of their forward movement from interior Arabia were sharply differentiated from the promiscuous groups of Semites who participated in the move- ment, By virtue of the relationship existing between Hebrew and the various Aramaic dialects, particu- larly between Hebrew and Aramaic in its oldest form, we are justified in thus placing the group subsequently distinguished as a conglomeration of clans, from which the Hebrews trace their descent, in the same category with that large and some- what indefinite branch of Semites which we have already designated as Aramean. While the relationship between Hebrews and Babylonian- Assyrians was never entirely broken off, political or commercial associations being maintained with but short interruptions between Mesopotamia and Palestine from the time of the permanent settle- ment of the Hebrews to the west of the Jordan, down to the destruction of the two Hebrew king- doms in the 8th and 6th cents. respectively, this relationship was not so close as that which was maintained between the Hebrews on the one hand, and the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Ishmael- ites (or Arabs), Phoenicians, and other subdivisions of the great Aramzan branch, on the other. Among the races occurring in the OT, it is these which occupy the most prominent place in Hebrew history. It seems desirable, therefore, to dwell upon them in greater detail. The tradition recorded in Gn 19%-%8 which ascribes the origin of the MOABITES and AMMON- ITES to an act of incest committed by Lot with his two daughters, simply reflects the hostility | between these two nations and the Hebrews. To throw discredit upon an opponent’s ancestry is a favourite method in Arabic poetry of expressing one’s contempt and inveterate hatred. More sig- nificant, as pointing to the close bond between these three groups, is the circumstance that Abraham and Lot are represented as uncle and nephew. Interpreted historically, this relation- ship points to a clan or group of clans exercising supremacy over another group or sending forth this group as an ofishoot. The character of the Abraham-Lot cycle of stories points to the latter contingency. The separation of Lot from Abraham (Gn 13) is decisive in this respect. It is the form in which tradition records the recollection that one group is an offshoot of a larger one. The quarrel between Abraham’s ‘ men’ and the followers of Lot is the common occurrence among nomads. They separate into little groups, and, as these groups grow, rivalry ensues, leading to further separation. We are therefore justified in concluding that Moabites and Ammonites were at one time not differentiated from the Hebrews, or rather that all three belonged to a single group, whatever the e.g. the inscriptions of Teima ( 6th cent. Bc) and the inscriptions of Zinjerli (Sth cent. Bo, 74 RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT name of that group may have been. That there were other clans or tribes arising from that general group is quite certain, and, as this body of Aramzean tribes moved northwards from the Euphrates Valley and settled to the east and west of the Jordan, they were joined on the road by others. It is not necessary for all the members of the group to have come into Palestine at one time. On the contrary, it is more likely that, owing to circumstances beyond our knowledge, it was a series of waves of emigration that led Aramzean groups away from the Euphrates and by a devious northern route towards lands farther to the west. The Hebrews, Moabites, and Ammonites were carried along by these waves; and, whatever the order in which they came, the motives leading them to the west were the same in all. Language again comes to our aid in confirming this theory of the intimate bond uniting Hebrews to Moabites and Ammonites. The Moabite Stone (see vol. iii. p. 404 ff.), found in 1868 at Dibon, the capital of Moab, and recording the deeds of Mesha, king of Moab (c. 850 B.c.), proves that Hebrew and Moabitish differ from one another as much as and no more than the dialect of northern Germany differs from the speech of southern Germany, while the proper names of Ammonitish rulers and gods in the OT, in default of Ammonite records which have not yet been found, indicate that Hebrew and Ammonitish stood in the same close relationship to one another. That the political relations continued to be hostile from the first differentiation of the three groups, is the natural outcome of conditions which still characterize the districts once occupied by the Moabites and. Ammonites. The case is somewhat different with the EDom- ITES. The fact that they do not enter upon the scene until after the Hebrews had crossed the Jordan is significant. The process of differentia- tion had progressed sufficiently to single out of the Aramzan branch the Hebrews as a distinct sub- division. If tradition is to be trusted, the con- tinuation of this same process which led to the separation of the Abraham and Lot clans, further divided the Hebrews into two subdivisions, one represented by Isaac—Jacob—Israel, the other b Tshiieal’ Heine eon! The double line of tradi- tion, however, complicates the situation consider- ably. Ishmael and Isaac as ‘sons’ of Abraham are paralleled by Esau and Jacob as ‘ sons’ of Isaac. To conclude that the Abrahamitic group first separated into two subdivisions, Isaac and Ishmael, and that subsequently another differentiation took place between Esau and Jacob as branches of the Isaac group, seems tempting; but this simple solution of the problem encounters some obstacles. The ISHMAELITES, according to Biblical tradition, are identified with the large body of tribes in central northern Arabia, and the Arabs themselves have accepted this tradition ; but the unequal proportion between the two, the Hebrews representing a well- defined group of comparatively small extent, while the Ishmaelites assume the dimensions of a branch of the Semites as extensive and as undefined as the ‘Arameans,’ raises the suspicion that the Biblical tradition in this instance is not of popular origin, or at all events not wholly popular, but due to a ‘learned’ theory which attempted to account for the close racial and the no less close linguistic affinities between Hebrews and Arabs. The theory is naturally interpreted in the OT with due allow- ance for national pride, so that, while Ishmael is conceded to be the older son of Abraham (Gn 161), Isaac is the favourite one (227), While, again, the tradition is forced to make the concession to historical fact in predicting for Ishmael a large rogeny (Gn 16!-177°), and otherwise admitting lohim’s partiality for Ishmael (e.g. 17!8),—witness RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the act of circumcision which admits him into the covenant with Elohim (177-25), and Ishmael’s miraculous deliverance (21'%-?°),—the general aim of the tradition is to play off Isaac against Ishmael. This is consciously None and in a manner quite different from the naive way in which in other instances popular tradition is given a literary form. If in addition it be borne in mind that, in the actual history of the Hebrews, Ishmaelites play no part, it seems plausible to conclude that the Ishmaelitie current in the OT tradition is not of popular origin. The Ishmaelites do not dwell in Palestine or in the immediately adjacent dis- tricts, and popular tradition takes no interest in groups of peoples with which it has nothing to do. At most, Ishmael’s being driven away from the domain set aside for Isaac may recall a settlement in Palestine prior to the advent of the Hebrews; but even this element of historical sediment in the tradition is doubtful, and it seems more plausible to assume that the separation of Isaac and Ishmael is a ‘doublet’ suggested either by Lot’s separation from Abraham or Jacob’s separation from Esau, the story itself being introduced to account for the etlinic relationship between Hebrews and Arabs, As such it has its value and, in a certain sense of the word, its justification. 2. The ARABS represent the second great branch into which the Semites may be divided, and as further subdivisions of this branch we may dis- tinguish (1) the Arabs of central and northern Arabia ; (2) the Arabs of southern Arabia; (3) the offshoot of the latter in Africa—notably in Abys- sinia; (4) the offshoots in modern times of the Arabs of northern and central Arabia in (a) Egypt and the N. African coast, (6) Palestine and Syria, (c) India and the Malay Archipelago. So far as the OT is concerned, we are interested only in the first two subdivisions. The culture of the Arab branch of the Semites begins in the south —in southern Arabia and in Abyssinia. Which of these is the original and which the off- shoot is a question which a number of years a could have been answered without hesitation in favour of the former, but which now is an open one. During the past two decades, inscriptions have been found in Yemen and in Abyssinia re- vealing the existence of several important king- doms in southern Arabia, and indicating both here and on the opposite African coast a noteworthy degree of culture, the age of which is at least fifteen hundred vents before our era, and which may turn out to be considerably older. If the theory which places the home of the Semites in central Arabia be accepted, the pro- babilities are that, corresponding to a northern movement, there was a tendency for certain groups of Semites to spread towards the south ; and if the culture in the south was actually established by them in this way, it would also be natural to suppose that this culture was carried by emigrants from Yemen to Abyssinia. How- ever that may be, the language of southern Arabia, known as Himyaritic,—subdivided into a number of dialects, —and that of Abyssinia, known as Ethiopic, prove a close connexion between the groups inhabiting this district. It is interesting to note that southern Arabia and Abyssinia are mentioned in the famous description of the rivers of Paradise (Gn 24-1) ; for, whatever the origin of the name Havilah is, there is little doubt that some district of Arabia is meant, while the land of Cush is, to the writer of Gn 2, Ethiopia. The historical relations between Hebrews and the Arabs of southern Arabia appear to have been entirely of a commercial character, and these Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens (Berlin, 1890), ii. 323-326. and the Edomites. RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT seem to have been confined to the short period of political glory which tradition associates with the poten of Solomon. This commercial inter- course between southern Arabia and Palestine 8h rise to the ‘ Midrashic’ tale of the queen of heba’s visit to Solomon (1 K 10!-!°), to which the Arabs have added as supplement Solomon’s visit to Yemen. The Arabs have also retained the recollection of the twofold division of the branch, and, in the genealogical lists prepared with such infinite care by the genealogists, one branch—the northern—is traced back to Adnan, and the other —the southern—to Kahtan. The Ethiopians were well known to the Hebrews, and the prophets are fond of introducing allusions to them into their orations (e.g. Is 18', Jer 46°, Ezk 29" 304 etc., Nah 3°, Zeph 3"), although Cush does not aly stand for Ethiopia. Coming back to the tradition in Genesis which divides the Hebrews after Isaac into two divisions —Jacob-Israel and Esau-Edom—there can scarcely be any doubt that we have here again a case of a popular tradition and perfectly reliable, in so far as it points to a common origin for the Hebrews While the Moabites and the Ammonites remained east of the Jordan and the Hebrews moved to the west, the Edomites eventu- ally established themselves to the south and south- east of the Hebrews; though, retaining their nomadic habits of life and nomadic fierceness of manner, they frequently made incursions into the territory of their neighbours. The form of the Biblical tradition would also indicate that the Edomites formed part of the ‘Aramzan’ emigration that entered the lands to the east of the Jordan in a series of migratory waves, coming by the northern route from the Euphrates Jacob and Esau _ are represented as district. twin sons of the Isaac and Rebekah clans. The marriage between Isaac and Rebekah, inter- preted historically, means that a branch of the Abrahamitic group formed an alliance with another group which, in continuation of the western movement that brought Abraham and Lot to the west, prompted other Aramean groups to follow the example. Rebekah coming from ‘Aram-naharaim’ to join the Hebrew group is a proof for the theory above maintained, that the stream of ‘Aramezan’ emigration to the west continued steadily for an indefinite period, and perhaps never ceased entirely. Alliances between small groups are common among the nomads to this day ; but the result is generally that after a time a separation again takes place, not neces- sarily between the same groups, but in the next generation® or two, by which time the growth of the united group has been such as to engender rivalries among the members. In the case of Jacob and Esau there is another reason for the separation, and one of no small historical moment. It was natural that some at least of the Aramzan hordes, attracted to the Euphrates district by the culture existing there, should have been influenced by the example of this culture to take a forward step in civilization. We may safely set down Babylonian culture as an important factor in bringing about the division of the Semitic nomads into two classes—those of the fiercer grade retaining their nomadic habits unchanged, dependent upon hunting and plunder for their sustenance ; and the higher grade, softer in manner, wandering about, followed by _ their flocks, and continuing nomadic habits chiefly for the sake of the latter and because of the necessity of seeking proper pasturage at the various seasons of the year. Those groups of the Aramzean branch Weil, Biblische Musselma nkfort, 4845), pp. 245-275. on ora igatd doef RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 75 which became differentiated as Hebrews, Moabites, and Ammonites, attain the higher grade at the time of their entrance into western lands or shortly thereafter, while the Edomites represent a sub- division which either relapses into the fiercer state —a not uncommon experience—or was, for some reason or other, prevented from taking the ste forwards which eventually leads to the agricultur: stage, and with this the complete laying aside of nomadic habits. Jacob, described as ‘a tent dweller’ (Gn 25’), represents the nomad on the road to culture, and is contrasted with Esau the hunter —the Bedawi proper (i6.). A hint of impending change in social conditions is already furnished by the tradition associated with Abra- ham and Isaac of digging wells (Gn 2614) for the needs of the extensive herds of sheep and cattle which they acquired (v.14). This being the case, it is not easy to account for the close association of the two groups, Jacob and Esau, representing such different levels of culture, and why there should be, in the case of one of the subdivisions of the Hebrew group, a reversion to the ruder nomadic type. Such, however, is evidently the case, and the Edomites, tracing back their descent to the Esau clan, represent a branch of the Hebrews that remained in a lower stage of culture, while the other steadily advanced till the agricultural stage was reached. The bond between the Israelites and the Edomites appears to have been much closer than that between the Hebrews and any other sub- divisions. The rivalry, too, appears to have been keener. There is not merely hatred between Jacob and Esau, but the former adroitly dispos- sesses the latter, drives him away from his in- heritance back almost to the desert, where he takes up much the same sort of life as that led by the Semites before coming into touch with culture atall. Still, the recollection that Israel and Edom are brothers is preserved in the popular mind in quite a different manner from that in which Ish- mael and Isaac are so spoken of. A late psalmist (Ps 1377) still denounces the treachery of Edom at the time of the downfall of the Southern kingdom as particularly reprehensible, because, as a brother, he should have come to the rescue instead of help- ing to the downfall of Judah. It lies, of course, outside the province of this article to consider the details of the relationship between Israel and Edom. For our purpose it is sufficient to specify in this general way the relationship existing be- tween the Hebrews and the various subdivisions of the Aramzan and Arabic branches of Semites. Two other branches of the Arabic group which appear prominently among the races of the OT are the Amalekites and the Midianites.. The tradition recorded in Gn 36!2 traces the AMALEKITES back to Esau. Like the Edomites, they represent the fiercer type of the Bedawin. Their first encounter with the Hebrews takes place during the period when the latter themselves are still in the nomadic stage. The rivalry between the two must have been bitter indeed, since the hatred of the Hebrews towards the Amalekites not only survives to a late period, but is inculcated in the Pentateuch as a religious duty (Dt 2517-). While originally the name of an Arab tribe settled around Kadesh, the term seems to have come to be applied to roaming bands of marauders in general. It is in this way probably that we are to account for the presence of Amalekites not only at Rephidim (Ex 17816), but as far north as Mt. Ephraim (Jg 12", cf.5\). Indeed the Hebrews are molested by Amalekites as late as the days of Saul (1S 15'®), and it was left for David to drive them The Arabic word bedzoij signifies the ‘one outside,’ and is therefore the equivalent of the Hebrew phrase ‘man of the field’ (Gn 2527), 76 RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT finally back to their desert haunts (1S 301%), The Renites and Kenizzites settled around Hebron are set down as branches of the Amalekites who joined the federation of the Béné Israel, and this defection must have intensified the hatred of the Amalekites for Israel, and led to atrocities and barbarous treatment of captives on the part of the Amalekites, the recollection of which survived among the Hebrews to a late day. The application of the name Amalek to Bedawin in general finds a parallel in the still more indefinite manner in which the term Midian is used by some OT writers. That the MIDIANITES also belong to the Arabic group of Semites is sufficiently shown by their settlement around Mt. Sinai, where we first find them (Ex 2-1’) described as shepherds. They were evidently regarded as already, in the days of Moses, belonging to the milder class of Bedawin—the nomad on the road to culture; and yet subsequently, in the period of the Judges, the idianites are in alliance with the Amalekites (Jg 6°). In genuine Bedawin fashion they pounce down upon the Hebrews, who had now become agri- culturists, and rob them of their flocks and belong- ings. At this time they are scarcely to be distin- guished from the Amalekites; and the two groups become synonymous with the marauding bands of Bedawin, belonging in reality to a vast number of different tribes who constantly threaten the existence of the cultured States of Palestine. 3. There is still one branch of the Semites to be considered which receives prominent mention among the races of the OT —the PH@niciANS. If we were to be guided by the testimony of language alone, the settlers along the northern Mediter- ranean coast certainly belong to the same branch as Hebrews, Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites ; but the totally different social conditions prevailing in Phenicia, and the unique réle played by the Phenicians in history as merchants and seamen, suggest that another factor is at work here. The theory has been advanced and met with consider- able favour, that the Phcnicians were not the original settlers of the coastland of Syria, but came there from their homes, which were originally on the southern coast of Asia Minor, or, as some are inclined to believe, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf. There is, however, not sufficient material to settle so delicate a problem. There is no indi- cation that the population along the Syrian coast represents a mixture of Semites with other races, and our knowledge of Phenician antiquities is too meagre —and what there is does not reach far enough back—to enable us to specify the historical relationship existing between the Phcenicians and other subdivisions of the Aramzean branch. As long as no evidence to the contrary is forthcoming, we must continue to place the Phoenicians in the same category with Hebrews, Moabites, ete.; and, assuming that they formed part of the general movement of ‘ Aramzan’ groups from Arabia, they became differentiated after settling along the coast- land, where they may already have found a seafar- ing population, whom they gradually dispossessed, just as the Hebrews upon entering Palestine found the country settled by a population whom they in turn drove out. The relationship between Hebrews and Phe- nicians was, again, chiefly commercial, just as between Hebrews and Yemenites. Commercial intercourse led to political alliances; and at one time, in consequence of such an alliance,—in the days of Ahab,—there was danger of the Pheenician cult becoming a serious rival to the national Jahweh worship. The Pheenicians lead us to consider another group, which entered into far closer relations with the Hebrews than almost any other, and which, RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT among the races of the OT, occupies a peculiarly prominent and significant place—the CANAANITES, The OT usage of ‘Canaan’ is not consistent, being sometimes employed to include all of Palestine proper, Pheenicia, and even lands to the east of the Jordan, and at times restricted to Palestine. It is therefore not easy to determine the precise ex- tent of Canaanitish settlements. From the fact that ‘Canaanite’ comes to be synonymous with the merchant of Pheenicia (Is 23°, Ezk 174, ‘Pr 314), we may certainly conclude that the Phenicians were regarded as Canaanites, and the further use of the term as a designation of the pre-— Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine is an indication of a close relationship between some sections at least of those peoples whom the Hebrews dis- possessed and the Phenicians. But at this point certainty ends. The Canaanite is frequently in- troduced in the OT in connexion with a number of other groups—the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivvites, and Jebusites (eg. Ex 34"), to which elsewhere the Girgashites are added (eg. Gn 15% 21), It is quite clear from the way in which these peoples are grouped,—sometimes five being mentioned, sometimes seven, at times only two— Canaanite and Perizzite (e.g. Gn 13’ 34%),—that they were no longer sharply differentiated in the minds of the writers. Taken together, they con- stitute the inhabitants of Palestine whom the Hebrews encountered when they attempted to conquer the country ; but the survival of the term ‘Canaan’ asthe name for the district, and ‘Canaan- ite’ as a general designation for the earlier inhabit- ants, points to Canaanites as forming the most powertul, and probably also the most prominent, part of the population. It may well be that some of those mentioned in the above conglomeration —notably the Perizzites and Girgashites — were merely subdivisions of the Canaanites that for a time acquired an independent position, but after- wards were again absorbed into the general body of Canaanites. At all events, it is plausible to assume that the interior of Palestine was oceupied for an indefinite period, prior to the advent of the ‘Hebrews, by groups of Semites more or less closely related to one another of which the Canaanites became the most prominent. These Canaanites belonging to the same branches as the Semitic settlers in Phoenicia, the question of their origin is involved in the problem as to the origin of the Phenicians. Adopting again the general theory above advanced, we may assume a movement similar to that which brought the Hebrews to Palestine to have taken place at a much earlier date. What Hebrew tradition assigns to the days of Abraham appears, then, to have been only a repetition of much earlier events. The Pheenicians and the Palestinian Canaanites would thus represent a subdivision of the Aramzan branch that moved along the Euphrates, and finally passed over by the northern route towards western lands, some settling along the coast and others pushing into the interior. In the course of time these groups took a step forwards in culture, and became agriculturists. Their villages developed into towns, while those groups living on the coast were lured to seafaring careers. It was the Canaanites—to use the general name —whom the Hebrews, upon entering Palestine, found in possession, and the wars with them con- tinued for many generations, until finally the Hebrews obtained the upper hand. This contact with the Canaanites forms a most important factor in Hebrew history. By that power of attraction which the higher culture possesses for those of an inferior grade, the Hebrews were ‘Rephaim’ in this verse is an explanatory gloss. wy. eye ee ee ee RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 77 prompted to make the attempt to secure for them- selves the towns and cultivated lands to the west of the Jordan. ‘The success of their efforts is followed by the permanent abandonment of no- madic habits, and instead of sheep raisers they become and remain for subsequent centuries tillers of the soil. From a religious point of view, the contact with the Canaanites was also fraught, with important consequences. The national deity, Jahweh, originally associated with the sojourn of the people in the wilderness,—the nomadic period of theit existence,—becomes the protecting deit: of the fields, and the people do not hesitate to call Jahweh by the name which the Canaanites applied to their field deities—Baal. For a time the amalgamation of the Jahweh and the Canaanitish Baal cult seemed imminent, when a ‘national’ reaction takes place, and, under the lead of jealous Jahweh-worshippers, the attempt is made to drive the Baal priests with the Baal rites out of the country, just as the worshippers of Baal had been forced out of their possessions. For all that, Jahweh absorbs some of the traits of Baal, and it is not until several centuries later—when Jahweh Himself was on the point of becoming a deity singled out from all others by the ethical character attributed to Him—that the last traces of the old Canaanitish cults also disappear. How far back the arrival of the Canaanites in Palestine is to be dated is a question which cannot be answered with any degree of certainty. It is safe to assume an interval of several centuries between this event and the movement of Hebrew tribes from the Euphrates Valley towards western lands. The earliest occurrence of the name is in the Tel el-Amarna tablets, dating from c. 1400 B.c., in which we find the name Canaan under the form Kinahi, but limited in its application to the sea- coast, and more properly the northern seacoast, i.e. Phoenicia. But, at whatever date we fix the entrance of the Canaanites, even they do not appear to have been the first Semitic group that settled in Palestine. Of the groups mentioned so frequently with the Canaanites in the OT—the Perizzites, Hittites, Hivvites, Amorites, Girgash- ites, and Jebusites—we know unfortunately very little, with the exception of the Hittites and the Amorites. The Perizzites and the Girgashites, it has been pointed out, may have been subdivisions of Canaanites, and yet from the way in which, in two places (Gn 137 34%), Canaanites and Perizzites are put side by side as comprising all Palestine, one might be tempted to conclude that the Perizzites represented an independent group, which was at one time coequal in importance with the Canaan- ites. It seemseven more certain that the Jebusites and Hivvites had no direct connexion with the Canaanites. Taking this in connexion with the circumstance that in the Tel el-Amarna tablets the term Canaan does not include Palestine proper, it is more than probable that some of the groups mentioned with the Canaanites represent still other settlers. In a notable passage (Gn 151) three additional groups—Kenites, Kenizzites, and Kadmonites—are spoken of as occupying the terri- tory later claimed by the Hebrews. ‘That these groups are Semitic is sufticiently indicated by their names, the last mentioned of which, the ‘ Kaster- ners,’ still contains a trace of the district whence they came. At the period of the Hebrew conquest of Pales- tine we no longer hear of these groups. They = ere this to have been driven to the south by the all-powerful Canaanites, and subsequently to the west by the Hebrews. It is quite natural that the traditions regarding these earlier movements should be dimmed. There was no reason why the Hebrews or the Hebrew writers should have been sufficiently interested to preserve any distinct re- collection. Their relations were primarily with the Canaanites. The importance of the latter in the eyes of the Hebrews is revealed in the earlier form of the story of the distribution of mankind as furnished in Gn 9%-27, which makes Canaan, Shem, and Japheth the progenitors of the human race; and, on the other fone the hatred of these rivals of the Hebrews crops out in this same chapter which connects Canaan with Ham — the ‘accursed’ son of Noah (v.). ii. RACES OF DOUBTFUL ORIGIN. —A peculiar osition is occupied by the Amorites and the Prittites. The AMORITES are found throughout northern Palestine as early at least as the 12th century B.C., when we encounter the name Amurru (or Amurra) in cuneiform inscriptions. So pro- minent do they become that they furnish to the Babylonian and Assyrian chroniclers the name for the entire district of northern and southern Pales- tine, and there are indications that the Hebrews, too, at one time gave to the term Amorite an extensive application. In the so-called Elohistic document, ‘land of the Amorite’ is used in this way. These Amorites must accordingly have turned to the south, and, indeed, when the He- brews entered Palestine, they found their way blocked by a large powerful kingdom on the east of the Jordan (see AMORITES in vol. i.). The re- markable statement of Ezekiel (16), that the ‘mother’ of Jerusalem was a Hittite, and the ‘father’ an Amorite, points also to the early presence of Amorites on the west of Jordan. To assume, however, that ‘Canaanites’ and ‘ Amor- ites’ are synonymous terms representing one and the same population, is not justified. In the Tel el-Amarna tablets the ‘Amurru’ land is frequently mentioned and always designates the interior of Palestine, though more particularly the northern section; but the name may be carried back still farther. In Babylonian legal documents of the period, c. 2300 B.c., a town Amurru occurs, situated in Babylonia. If we are to conclude from this that the Amorites also came from the Euphrates Valley, we should have still another instance of the move- ment which brought such various groups of Semites to the west. A more important conclusion that appears to be warranted, is that the Amorites would thus turn out to be settlers in Palestine earlier than the Canaanites, and that the latter represent the group which finally obtains the ascendency and retains it until the appearance of the Hebrews. That with the conquest of the land by the Canaanites, the Amorites do not disappear, any more than the Hivvites, Jebusites, and other groups, is quite natural, seeing that when the He- brews conquered the Canaanites the old inhabitants were dispossessed, but, by the express testimony of OT writers, not driven out (Ex 237 , Jg 121. 27-86), The question has been raised, notably by Sayce (Races of the Old Testament, z 110), whether the Amorites and other groups of the pre-Israelitish inhabitants were Semites. Much stress has been laid upon the representation of Amorites on Egyp- tian monuments where they are depicted with yellow skin, blue eyes, red eyebrows and beard, and light but also black hair (W. M. Flinders Petrie, Racial Types from Egypt, London, 1887). The Egyptian artists, however, were not always consistent in their drawings, and more particu- larly in their colourings, as Sayce himself is forced to admit (/.c. 113, 114). Too much im- portance, therefore, must not be attached to the colouring of the racial types on the Egyptian monuments. Anxiety to produce a pleasing or startling effect was a factor which ene See Steinthal, Zeits. f. Vélkerpsychologie, 12, 267, and Ed. Meyer, ZAT'W i, 122. 78 RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT — seriously with ethnographical accuracy. But, apart from the colouring, there are no such decided dis- tinctions between Amorites and Judwans on Egyp- tian monuments as to warrant the supposition that the two belonged to different races or even to different branches of the Semites ; and to account for this, as Sayce would have us do, by assuming that up to comparatively so late a period as the days of Rehoboam the population of southern Judea was still largely Amoritic (d.c. p. 112), is simply building a further argument upon a mere supposition. The term Amorite, moreover, has a Semitic sound and appearance, and until better evidence to the con- trary is forthcoming we may group them with the same race as the later settlers of Palestine. The Amorites were a warlike people, living in walled towns. The recollection of their prowess survived to a late date, and they became to subsequent Seeger the giants of olden days. It has ecome customary in consequence to identify the Amorites with the ANAKIM, REPHAIM, EMIM, and ZAMZUMMIM, or to regard these as so many sub- divisions of the Amorites. It is true that the Rephaim and Anakim are occasionally spoken of in the OT as though they were identical with Amorites, but this is due to the fact that ‘Re- phaim’ and ‘Anakim’ (cf. e.g. Dt 2! 2 311 13) are used as generic terms for a powerful race, and no longer as specific designations of any particular group. This, however, does not imply that there were no groups known as Rephaim and Anakim respectively, but that they belong to such a remote past as to become mere names to later generations ; and since strength and gigantic stature are invari- ably ascribed by a later generation to remote ancestors,—in part, no doubt, justifiably ascribed, —we may only conclude from the way in which these terms are used that no definite traditions about these groups have survived. As for Emim and Zamzummim (possibly identical with the Zuzim of Gn 14°), they are merely the names of the ancient population of Moab and Ammon respectively (Dt 24 and”). While it is no longer possible to specify the extent of the territory of the Rephaim and Anakim, so much appears tolerably certain that these groups, with the Emim and Zamzummim, constitute the oldest inhabitants of Palestine and the district to the east of the Jordan known to us —preceding the Amorites but afterwards coin- mingled through the faintness of tradition with Amorites, just as Amorites in time are not sharply distinguished from Canaanites, and just as the oups Hivvites, Perizzites, etc., come to be viewed In some strata of tradition as subdivisions of Canaanites. If we are to seek for a non-Semitic race in Pales- tine at all, we must go back beyond the Amorites to the nebulous Rephaim, Anakim, Emim, and Zamzummim, There are some reasons for actually supposing the pre-Amoritic settlers to have been of a different race, which was gradually subdued by the Amorites both to the east and west of Jordan but the thesis is one which in the present state of our knowledge cannot be proved with certainty, though the fact of the existence of an early non-Semitic popu in certain portions of Palestine has now een established by ethnological evidence (see Alex. Macalister in PE /St, Oct. 1902, pp. 353-356). With even greater assurance than in the case of the Amorites, has it been maintained that the HitTitEs belong to a non-Semitic race. The problem in this instance is even more complicated, in consequence of the vague and indefinite usage of the term. We find a group of Hittites in the south around Hebron carried back by tradition to the days of Abraham (Gn 23°-7-! etc.). These Hittites are also in alliance with Edomites, and in the days ef David we encounter Hittites in his army (2S 11, RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT ef. 1 S 26°). The Egyptian and Assyrian monu- ments, however, raven the existence of Hittite settlements in the north along the Orontes as early as the 15th cent. B.C., and these gave the mighty Assyrian rulers a great deal of trouble before the were finally subdued towards the end of the 8t century. ‘The term appears to include a variety of groups which extend northward and westward of the Amorites to the southern and western crests of Asia Minor as well as far into the interior. These northern Hittites do not seem to have anything more in common with those of the south than the name. How this is to be accounted for is an un- solved problem. While the northern Hittites have left numerous monuments containing sculptures and inscriptions, those in the south do not appear to have even reached the stage of culture which produces art and literature. From the Egyptian monuments we catch glimpses of the lttite physiognomy, and, to judge from these, the Hitt- ites were not a Semitic race; and yet too much stress must not be laid upon these representations. Certainly, we have no sound reason for supposing those of the south to belong to any other race than the Semites. The rather close relations between them and the Hebrews and the Edomites would point to.ethnic affinity ; and if there is any con- nexion between the Hittites of the south and those of the north, we may at most assume that the latter became mixed with the non-Semitic popula- tion without losing Semitic traits altogether. iii. NoN-SEMITIC AND MIXED RAcgEs.—l. But, while a doubt thus remains as to the ethnic character of the Hittites, there is no question as to the non-Semitic character of a group with which the Hebrews from a certain period came into close though always hostile contact — the PHILISTINES. There is no reason to question the tradition which makes them come from CAPHTOR (Am 97, Dt 2%, Jer 47); and, while the problems connected with the identification of Caphtor have not been entirely solved, still all the indications point towards Crete, and scholars are now pretty generally agreed in regarding the Philistines as pirates belangine to some branch of the Aryan stock, who, attracted perlieye as were the Hebrews, by the fertile lands of Palestine, forced their way into the Canaanitish settlements, and succeeded in obtaining the supremacy in the entire ‘Shephé- lah,’ where they established a number of petty kingdoms. Almost immediately after they entered Palestine, hostilities between Hebrews and Philis- tines began, and, long after the Canaanites were subdued, the Hebrews still had to contend against the armies of the Philistines. In the days of David their opposition was broken, and, though after the death of Solomon they regained their independence, it was but a shadow of the old power that remained. The interference of Assyria ir Palestinian affairs dispelled even this shadow. We have thus passed in rapid review the large variety of groups in Palestine and adjacent dis- tricts with which the Hebrews came into political or commercial contact, and who occupy a more or less prominent place among the races of the OT. 2. Passing beyond the narrower bounds, and yet not leaving Semitic settlements altogether, we have first to deal with the E@ypTIANs. Like Baby- lonia, Egypt, by virtue of its flourishing culture, proved an attractive magnet which drew the no- mads of the Sinai peninsula and ear feta districts to frequent sallies against the outlying Egyptian cities, and, as in the case of the Aramzean advances along the banks of the Euphrates, the higher cul- ture prompted groups now and then to a forward step which led to the partial abandonment of the life commensurate with the Bedawin stage of cul- ture. Egypt, accessible both from the north and RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT the south, on several occasions fell a prey to in- vaders who managed to obtain control of the political fortunes of the country. The monuments at Beni Hassan depict most graphically an invasion of foreigners, who are none other than the Semites, entering Egypt, and, as we learn from various sources, Ecnally becoming powerful factions in certain of the Egyptian districts. The Hyksos dynasty is an illustration of the power which foreigners managed to obtain in Egypt; and who- ever may be intended by the Pharaoh under whom Joseph, according to Biblical tradition, rose to eminence, his presence marks the success of one of the Semitic invasions of Egypt. The groups that primarily came to Egypt naturally belonged to the Arabic branch of the Semites, but these were not infrequently joined by those coming from southern and central Palestine, who formed part of the Aramzan movement from the Euphrates Valley towards the west. The higher class of nomads, whowere prompted to change their location with a view to securing pasturage for their flocks, would find themselves specially attracted to Egypt in those periods, not infrequent in Palestine, when the insufficiency of rain during the wintry season is sure to be followed by a drought and scarcity of food. It was such an occurrence that led some of the tribes which afterwards formed the confederation of the Israelites to pass down to Egypt, and their numbers, as appears from the form of the narrative in Exodus, were from time to time reinforced by others. In that sense we are to interpret the story which tells of Simeon and Benjamin being kept in Egypt as hostages before the others joined them there, which means simply that certain tribes reached Egypt earlier than others. The narrative in Genesis (46%-?’) makes all the ‘twelve’ tribes proceed to Egypt, but we can hardly expect a reliable tradition on such a ques- tion of detail. So accustomed are the writers of a later age to regard the federation of the twelve tribes as a unit, that they project this union into the remote past, though without historical warrant for doing so. The OT writers, viewing history from the point of view of later theorists, cannot conceive of less than twelve tribes at any time, and suppose that necessarily these tribes clung to one another. We are permitted to assume that certain Hebrew oups left their Palestinian settlements to seek tter ro in Egypt, but to go further and bring all twelve tribes into the district of the Nile is unhistorical, for the sufficient reason that the federation did not exist at this time except in the mind of the OT narrator, who is so fond of gene- alogies, and attaches such importance to them that he is inclined to place, in a remote past, facts and factors which really belong to a much later age. It is not surprising, in view of the location of Egypt, thus open to invasion from two sides, that its population was of a mixed character. If one may judge from the language of Egypt, the sub- stratum of which has now been ascertained to be Semitic, the basis of the population is likewise Semitic; but both language and people are largely mixed with ‘ Hamitic’ elements, more particularly "ip This element in the course of time appears to obtain the mastery, despite the frequent Semitic immigrations into pt, and to such an extent indeed that both the people and the language retain but few Semitic traits. 3. Of the BABYLONIANS we have already had occasion to speak. In the Euphrates Valley, like- wise, a mixture of races appears to have taken place at a remote period ; but here the situation is just the reverse of what we have found in Egypt, inasmuch as it is the Semitic element which obtains the See Erman’s article in ZDMG x\vi. pp. 93-129, and Hommel in the Beitrage zur Assyriologie, ii, 342-358. RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 79 supremacy to such an extent as to give to the Baby- lonian culture, from the earliest period revealed to us by historical inscriptions, a purely Semitic character. But the Egyptians and Babylonians (and subsequently the Assyrians) agree in this respect, that their relations to the Hebrews con- tinue, with but few interruptions, throughout the period of the political existence of the latter. Before the counter movement of Hebrew tribes and other Semitic groups from Egypt back to the Arabian peninsula takes place, Egyptian rulers enter into close relationship with Palestine, Pheenicia, and Syria. The Tel el-Amarna tablets, so frequently mentioned in the course of this article, are the evidence of this uninterrupted intercourse in the 15th cent. before our era. The establishment of a Hebrew confederacy in Palestine exposes the Hebrews to constant danger of being absorbed either by the rulers of the Nile or by the ambitious lords of the Euphrates Valley and the Tigris. The pee! history of the two Hebrew kingdoms is argely taken up with the endeavour to steer clear of this danger—an endeavour that ends in failure. iv. THE TENTH CHAPTER OF GENESIS.—The races hitherto discussed are the ones which play a part in the historical events unfolded in the OT narra- tives, but they are far from exhausting the races whose existence is recorded in the pages of the OT. The geographical horizon of the OT is re- markable for its wide extent, and indeed there are but few races—e.g. the Chinese and Japanese —which are left out of account in the famous tenth chapter of Genesis, which forms our principal source for a survey of the races of the OT in the wider sense, as including all those known to the Hebrews, or, more correctly speaking, to Hebrew writers, whether these races had anything to do with Hebrew history or not. The chapter itself in its present form is the result of considerable editing, involving more particularly the dovetailing of two documents, one of which is commonly assigned by modern scholars to the Jahwistic history, the other to the Priestly Code. The composition of the former of these documents is placed in the 9th cent., the latter shortly after the end of the exilic period; but how much earlier the traditions are, and the knowledge npn which the chapter is based, it is quite impossible to say. Apart from some additions in the list of the descendants of Shem, the chapter may be viewed as representing the geographical knowledge of a group of Hebrew writers in the 8th and 7th cent. B.c. The absence of any direct reference to Persia is an indication that even the post-exilic compiler took as his point of view conditions existing previous to his own day. In forming an estimate of the chapter, it should, however, be borne in mind that the tradi- tions embodied therein are of a scholastic and not a popular character, and that, while there are no sub- stantial reasons for assuming that the writers had before them geographical lists written in cuneiform or Egyptian characters from which they transcribed their data, the grouping of the races and nations of the world is distinctly the work of Hebrew school- men who are guided by learned and not by popular tradition. This is manifest already in Gn 9, the closing verses of which beginning with v.'®8 should be studied in connexion with ch. 10. The three groups into which the human race is divided do not represent a popular point of orizon—its tout view. A people’s geographical le monde—is limited by its political and social interests. The three sons of Noah in the popular form of the tradition are not the broad subdivisions of mankind, but three subdivisions within the groups in which the Hebrews were more particu- Ex 1238 speaks of the ‘mixed multitude’ which left Egypt at the same time as the Hebrews. 80 RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT larly interested : (a) Shem, by which the Hebrews themselves are meant; (6) Canaan, the predecessors and hated rivals of the Hebrews in Palestine ; (c) Japheth, originally designating probably the people of Pheenicia, with perhaps the adjacent island of Cyprus. These are the three sons of Noah in the original form of the famous blessing and curse (Gn 975-28), In the scholastic recasting of the popular tradition, the three sons of Noah become the progenitors of the human race. SHEM is taken as an extensive term to include a group of peoples who were regarded as ethnically close to the Hebrews, JAPHETH is similarly extended to em- brace a large group of races to the north of the Hebrews, while Canaan is replaced by HAM, who is viewed as the progenitor of the group of races to the south of Israel as well as of others who were particularly hostile to the Hebrews. Interpreted in this way, it is manifest that we must not seek for a purely scientific division of the races known to the OT writers, but one in which science is linked to national prejudices and preferences. With these preliminary remarks we may pass to an analysis of this remarkable document, so far as scholarship has succeeded in interpreting it. The suggestion has already been thrown out that the grouping of peoples in the chapter in question is geographical rather than ethnic or linguistic, though it may at once be added that the geographical principle is not consistently carried out. The clearest section is that referring to the sons of Japheth (vv.?°), the core of which belongs to the post-exilic writers. 1. The Japhethites represent groups and races lying to the north of Palestine. Of the ‘sons’ of apheth, namely, Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras, the majority have been identified. GOMER is the equivalent of the Gimirrai frequently referred to in the inscriptions of Assyrian kings, and represents a promiscuous group of peoples who, forced across the Black Sea y Scythian hordes pressing upon them, settled in Cappadocia. In the early part of the 7th cent. we find these Gimirrai in conflict with Assyria and Lydia, and shortly after the middle of that century they are driven still farther to the east. MADAI is Media, JAVAN represents the Ionians, while TUBAL and MESHECH are found in juxta- pone ie in the Assyrian inscriptions under the orms Tabal and Muski; and the location of these groups may with certainty be fixed in central Asia Minor. There remain only Magog and Tiras. Outside of the occurrence of MAGoG here (and in 1 Ch 15, which is copied from Gn 10?) the name is found twice in Ezekiel (38? and 396). In the former of these passages it is a gloss to Gog, indicat- ing the identity of Gog and Magog in the mind of the annotator; while in the second passage the LXX has ‘Gog,’ which the Hebrew text also exhibits in Ezk 38141618 and 391. In view of this, it seems reasonable to suppose that Mago is a slip for Gog, the M being superinduced perhaps by the m of the following Madai. The error, once introduced, was carried over into Ezekiel, once as @ variant, and in the second case as an actual read- ing instead of Gog. From the passages in Ezekiel the views connected with Gog may be clearly de- duced. The name is a collective one, for a whole series of peoples coming from the north, and threatening at one time, during the 7th cent., to engulf the Semitic world much as the Goths and Vandals threatened the Roman empire. The danger was averted, but so great was the terror inspired by the northern hordes that Gog survived to a late period as the symbol of wickedness and evil power—a pre-Christian Antichrist. The identification of TrRAS is not certain. The view The expression ‘dwelling in the tents of Shem’ (927) points to a land adjacent to Palestine. of Ed. Meyer (Gesch. d. Alterthums, i. p. 260), which associates Tiras with the Turusha, a sea faring nation mentioned in the Egyptian inscri tions of the 13th cent., and whom the Greeks reckon to the Pelasgians, has been generally accepted; but recently W. Max Miiller (Orient. Lit.-Zeitung, 15th Aug. 1900, col. 290) prefers to regard Tiras as a doublet—a variant of Tarshish mentioned in y.‘, and to identify both with Turs, i.e. the land of the Tyrsenians or Italy. As subdivisions of Gomer, there are mentioned Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. The passage in Jer 51”, where ASHKENAZ is placed in juxta- position with Minni and Ararat, is conclusive for placing the Ashkenazites in western Armenia, while the occurrence of a personage Ascanios as a leader of the Phrygians and Mysians in the Ziad (ii. 862 and xiii. 79) has, together with some other evi- dence (see ASHKENAZ in vol. i.), led some scholars to fix upon the Phrygians as the group more particu- larly denoted. For the location of RIPHATH there are no certain data, while TOGARMAH pas to be some part of Armenia, whence horses and mules were exported to the markets of Tyre (Ezk 38°). As of Gomer, so of Ionia, a number of sub- divisions are noted—Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. It has become customary to identify ELISHAH with Hellas; but since W. Max Miiller has shown satisfactorily that Alashia, occurring in the Tel el-Amarna tablets, is the ancient name for Cyprus, it seems natural to connect Elishah with this term (Or. Lit.-Zeit., 15th Aug. 1900, col. 288), TARSHISH has commonly been identified with the Phenician colony Tartessus in southern Spain. KittTim with Cyprus, in view of the town Citium ; and DoDANIM, for which the LXX as well as the pe passage (1 Ch 1’) has ‘ Rodanim,’ with hodes, There are, however, serious objections against all these identifications. One can ape suppose that a writer would jump in this wil fashion from Hellas to Spain, then back to Cyprus, and then on to Rhodes. The very frequent refer- ences to Tarshish—no fewer than twenty-five times in theOT—make it certain thatan intelligent reader knew where to look for it. But while there was one Tarshish, whose location was well known, which probably lay in Spain, it does not follow that ‘Tarshish’ in all passages refers to this place. There is significance in the juxtaposition with Pul (prob- ably an error for Put, or Punt) and Lydia in Is 66”. This suggests another Tarshish adjacent to Asia Minor; and, while in many if not most of the passages the location in Spain suits the context, in Gn 10 and in some other instances we do not appear to be justified in going so far to the west. Whether Kittim is really the city of Citium in Cyprus has been questioned by both Winckler and Miuller (see Or. Lit.-Zeit., 15th Aug. 1900, 76.). If Dodanim is really a corrupt reading for Rodanim, the identifica- tion with Rhodes may be admitted be certain that the LXX reading and the one in 1 Chron. do not represent an intentional change with a view of suggesting this identification. All therefore that can be said with regard to Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim is that we must probably seek for them among the larger islands of the Mediterranean and Aigean Sea—preferably among those adjacent to the southern and western coasts of Asia Minor. On this assumption we can understand the reference in v.° to the ‘islands of the nations,’ which appears to be a convenient manner of designating the minor islands of this region. The groupings of these four names is based on a tradition which regards the people meant as offshoots of Ionia on the Asia Minor coast. It does not, of course, follow that ‘ the sons of Japleth’ represent necessarily subdivisions of the Aryan race. As already pointed out, the ee a a a ee , but we cannot’ “ee os . etl oe RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT RACES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 81 writer of Gn 10 has but vague notions regarding racial affinities of nations, whereas his geographi- eal views are quite clear and definite. Still it so happens that Asia Minor, from the western coast far into the interior, was at an early date the seat of Aryan settlements, and in the 7th cent. the greater portion of the population belonged in all probability to the Aryan group of races. 2. The ‘sons of Ham,’ as the second division, embrace the races of the south, so far as known to the Hebrews, CusH being Ethiopia, M1zRAIM the equivalent of Egypt, while the evidence which identifies PuT with Libya—so ay. Josephus— is still the most satisfactory available. At the same time, it would appear from the | erack in Is 66° (above referred to) as well as from other evidence (see Winckler, Altor. Forschungen, i. p. 613, note), that there was another country, Put, situated near Lydia, and designating probably some island or group of islands in the Aigean Sea. In most of the passages in the prophetical books in which Put is mentioned, it is this region and not the Put of Gn 10° which is meant. The introduction of CANAAN at this point and the grouping with the ‘Hamites’ is not to be taken as an indication that in the mind of the writer the Canaanites came from thesouth. The mention is due to the hostility which existed between the Hebrews and Canaanites, and which prompted the writer, in obedience to popular prejudices, to place the Canaanites with the ‘accursed’ race. The same sad is responsible for the insertion (vv.*!"), which places the Babylonians and Assyrians—whose ulti- mate control of Palestine was already imminent at the time when the section was written—also with the sons of the ‘accursed’ son of Noah, though it is possible that the confusion of Cush= Ethiopia with the Cosszans (a people to the north-east of Babylonia), may have been a factor also in bring- ing about this result. As offshoots of Cush, there are mentioned Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabteca, and as offshoots of Raamah again, Sheba and Dedan. Of these seven districts, Havilah and Sheba and Dedan can be fixed with sufficient definiteness to form starting-points for the general determination of the rest. HAViLAH is certainly some district in Arabia—probably on the western coast,—SHEBA is a portion of southern Arabia, while DEDAN, to judge from the juxtaposition with Tema in central Arabia (Jer 25%, Ezk 2515), must be sought in the interior of Arabia, extend- ing Bedaiderably towards the north. The remain- ing names appear likewise to have been designations for other portions of the Arabian peninsula, more rticularly the western and south-western sections. nless we assume that the tradition is utterly without foundation, we must perforce conclude that Cushites settled in large numbers on the western coast of Arabia from the southern ex- tremity to a point considerably north. Similarly, in the subdivisions of Egypt (vv.™ 4) the certainty that the LEHABIM are Libyans, and that PATHROS is Upper Egypt, justifies the conclusion that the NAPHTUHIM and CASLUHIM are to be sought in northern Africa, even though the precise iden- tification is still doubtful. The introduction of the Philistines in v.'4 is, without much question, a gloss which has been inserted into the text at the wrong place. It would come appropriately after the mention of the CAPHTORIM,—1.e. probably Cretans (see above),—and the gloss itself, which connects the Philistines with Cashtor: rests upon the traditions embodied in such passages as Dt 2%, Jer 474, Am 9’. There, again, the bitter hostility between the Hebrews and the Philistines appears to have been the factor which prompted the association of the Cretans and Philistines with the descendants of Hamites,