Chapter X (2)

(1) עֵילָם (Αἰλαμ)] Assyrian _Elamtu_,¹ the name of “the great
plain East of the lower Tigris and North of the Persian Gulf,
together with the mountainous region enclosing it on the North
and East” (Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 320), corresponding
to the later Elymäis or Susiana. The district round Susa was
in very early times (after 3000 B.C.) inhabited by Semitic
settlers ruled by viceroys of the Babylonian kings; about
2280 the Anzanite element (of a different race and speaking a
different language) gained the upper hand, and even established
a suzerainty over Babylonia. From that time onwards Elam was
a powerful monarchy, playing an important part in the politics
of the Euphrates valley, till it was finally destroyed by
Assurbanipal.² The reason for including this non-Semitic race
among the sons of Shem is no doubt geographical or political.
The other Old Testament references are Genesis 14¹ᐧ ⁹, Isaiah
11¹² 21² 22⁶, Jeremiah 25²⁵ 49³⁴ ᶠᶠᐧ, Ezekiel 32²⁴, Daniel 8².

¹ Commonly explained as ‘highland’ (Schrader, Delitzsch
_Assyrisches Handwörterbuch_ etc.), but according to Jensen
(_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 170², xi. 351) =
‘front-land,’ _i.e._ ‘East land.’

² See the interesting historical sketch by Scheil, _Textes
elamites-semitiques_ (1900), pages ix‒xv [= volume ii. of
de Morgan, _Delegation en Perse: Memoires_]. Compare Sayce,
_The Expository Times._, xiii. 65.

(2) אַשּׁוּר] Assyria. See below on verse ¹¹ (page 211).

(3) אַרְפַּכְשֶׂד (Ἀρφαξαδ)] identified by Bochartus with the
Ἀῤῥαπαχῖτις which Ptolemy (vi. 1. 2) describes as the province
of Assyria next to Armenia,――the mountainous region round
the sources of the Upper Zab, between lakes Van and Urumia,
still called in Kurdish _Albâk_. This name appears in Assyrian
as Arapḫa (Arbaḫa, etc.),¹ and on Egyptian monuments of the
18th dynasty as _’Ararpaḫa_ (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 278 f.). Geographically nothing
could be more suitable than this identification: the difficulty
is that the last syllable שׁד is left unaccounted for. Josephus
recognised in the last three letters the name of the Chaldeans
(כֶּשֶׂד),² and several attempts have been made to explain the
first element of the word in accordance with this hint. (a) The
best is perhaps that of Cheyne (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 318),³
resolving the word into two proper names: ארפך or ארפח (= Assyrian
_Arbaḫa_) and כֶּשֶׂד,――the latter here introducing a second trio
of sons of Shem. On this view the Arpakšad of verse ²⁴ 11¹⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ
must be an error (for כשׂד?) caused by the textual corruption
here. (b) An older conjecture, approved by Gesenius (_Thesaurus
philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris
Testamenti_), Knobel, al., compares the ארפ with Arabic _’urfat_
(= ‘boundary’),⁴ Ethiopian _arfat_ (= ‘wall’); ארף כשד would thus
be the ‘wall (or boundary) of Kesed.’ (c) Hommel _The Ancient
Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 212, 294‒8)
takes the middle syllable _pa_ to be the Egyptian article,
reading _’Ur-pa-Kesed_ = Ur of the Chaldees (11²⁸),――an
improbable suggestion. (d) Delitzsch. (_Wo lag das Paradies?_
255 f.) and Jensen (_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xv. 256)
interpret the word as _arba-kišādu_ = ‘[Land of the] four
quarters (or shores),’ after the analogy of a common designation
of Babylonia in royal titles.――These theories are partly
prompted by the observation that otherwise Chaldea is passed
over in the Table of Priestly-Code,――a surprising omission,
no doubt, but perhaps susceptible of other explanations. The
question is complicated by the mention of an Aramean Kesed
in 22²². The difficulty of identifying that tribe with the
Chaldeans in the South of Babylonia is admitted by Driver (page
223); and if there was another Kesed near Ḥarran, the fact must
be taken account of in speculating about the meaning of Arpakšad.

¹ _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 177, 213, ii. 13, 89;
compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 124 f.

² Ἀρφαξάδης δὲ τοὺς νῦν Χαλδαίους καλουμένους Ἀρφαξαδαίους
ὠνόμασεν ἄρξας αὐτῶν: _Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 144.

³ A different conjecture in _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 3644;
_Traditions and Beliefs of Ancient Israel_, 178.

⁴ Note Tuch’s objections, page 205.

(4) לוּד (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ לד, LXX
Λουδ)] usually understood of the Lydians (Josephus, Bochartus,
al.), but it has never been satisfactorily explained how a
people in the extreme West of Asia Minor comes to be numbered
among the Shemites. An African people, such as appears to
be contemplated in verse ¹³, would be equally out of place
here. A suggestion of Jensen’s deserves consideration: that
לוד is the _Lubdu_,――a province lying “between the upper
Tigris and the Euphrates, North of Mt. Masius and its western
extension,”――mentioned in _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 4
(line 9 from below, read _Lu-up-di_), 177 (along with Arrapḫa),
199. See Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, ii. 47; Streck,
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, xiv. 168; Jeremias 276. In the
remaining references (Isaiah 66¹⁹, Jeremiah 46⁹, Ezekiel 27¹⁰
30⁵), the Lydians of Asia Minor might be meant,――in the last
three as mercenaries in the service of Egypt or Tyre.

(5) אֲרָם (Ἀραμ, Ἀραμων)] a collective designation of the Semitic
peoples speaking ‘Aramaic’ dialects,¹ so far as known to the
Hebrews (Nöldeke _Encyclopædia Biblica_, 276 ff.). The actual
diffusion of that family of Semites was wider than appears from
the Old Testament, which uses the name only of the districts
to the North-east of Palestine (Damascus especially) and
Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim, Paddan-Aram): these, however,
were really the chief centres of Aramæan culture and influence.
In Assyrian the _Armaiu_ (_Aramu, Arimu, Arumu_) are first
named by Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100) as dwelling in
the steppes of Mesopotamia (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
i. 33); and Shalmaneser II. (_circa_ 857) encountered them in
the same region (_ib._ 165). But if Winckler be right (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 28 f., 36), they
are referred to under the name _Aḫlāmi_ from a much earlier
date (Tel-Amarna Tablets; Ramman-nirari I. [_circa_ 1325];
Ašur-rîš-îši [_circa_ 1150]: see _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
v. 387, i. 5, 13). Hence Winckler regards the second half of
the 2nd millennium B.C. as the period during which the Aramæan
nomads became settled and civilised peoples in Mesopotamia and
Syria.

¹ οὓς Ἕλληνες Σύρους προσαγορεύουσιν――as Josephus correctly
explains.

In 1 Chronicles 1¹⁷ the words ובני ארם (verse ²³) are omitted, the
four following names being treated as sons of Shem:

(6) עוּץ (Ὠς, Οὐζ)] is doubtless the same tribe which in 22²¹ (Ὠξ,
Ὠζ) is classed as the firstborn of Naḥor: therefore presumably
somewhere North-east of Palestine in the direction of Ḥarran.
The conjectural identifications are hardly worth repeating.
The other Biblical occurrences of the name are difficult to
harmonise. The Uz of Job 1¹ (Αὐσιτις), and the Ḥorite tribe
mentioned in Genesis 36²⁰, point to a South-east situation,
bordering on or comprised in Edom; and this would also suit
Lamentations 4²¹, Jeremiah 25²⁰ (הָעוּץ!), though in both these
passages the reading is doubtful. It is suggested by William
Robertson Smith (_Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_², 61)
and Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 146) that the name
is identical with that of the Arabian god _‛Auḍ_; and by the
former scholar that the Old Testament עוּץ denotes a number
of scattered tribes worshipping that deity (similarly Budde
_Das Buch Hiob_ ix.‒xi.; but, on the other side, see Nöldeke
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xl.
183 f.).

(7) חוּל (Οὑλ)] Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 259) identifies
with a district in the neighbourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned by
Asshur-nasir-pal. The word (_ḥu-li-ia_), however, is there read
by Peiser as an appellative = ‘desert’ (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, i. 86 f., 110 f.); and no other conjecture is even
plausible.

(8) גֶּתֶר is quite unknown.

(9) מַשׁ (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ משא, LXX
Μοσοχ, in accord with 1 Chronicles 1¹⁷ Massoretic Text מֵשֶׁךְ)]
perhaps connected with Mons Masius,――τὸ Μάσιον ὄρος of Ptolemy
(v. 18. 2) and Strabo (XI. xiv. 2),――a mountain range North
of Nisibis now called Ṭûr-‛Abdîn or Ḳeraǧa Dagh (Bochartus,
Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 259, Dillmann, al.). The
uncertainty of the text and the fact that the Assyrian monuments
use a different name render the identification precarious.
Jensen (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 567) suggests
the mountain _Māšu_ of Gilgameš IX. ii. 1 f., which he
supposes to be Lebanon and Anti-Libanus. The _Mât Maš_ of
_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 221, which has been adduced
as a parallel, ought, it now appears, to be read _mad-bar_ (_Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 191²; compare Jensen
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, x. 364).

=31, 32.= Priestly-Code’s closing formula for the Shemites (³¹); and his subscription to the whole Table (³²).

_The Table of Yahwist._

=IX. 18a, X. 1b. Introduction.= See pages 182, 188.

A slight discontinuity in verse ¹ makes it probable that ¹ᵇ
is inserted from Yahwist. If so, it would stand most naturally
after 9¹⁸ᵃ (Dillmann), not after ¹⁹. It seems to me that ¹⁹
is rather the Yahwistic parallel to 10³² (Priestly-Code), and
formed originally the conclusion of Yahwist’s Table (compare the
_closing_ formulæ, 10²⁹ 22²³ 25⁴).

=8‒12. Nimrod and his empire.=――The section deals with the foundation of the Babylonio-Assyrian Empire, whose legendary hero, Nimrod, is described as a son of Kush (see below). Unlike the other names in the chapter, Nimrod is not a people, but an individual,――a _Gibbôr_ or despot, famous as the originator of the idea of the military state, based on arbitrary force.――=8.= The statement that _he was the first to become a Gibbôr on the earth_ implies a different conception from 6⁴. There, the Gibbôrîm are identified with the semi-divine Nephîlîm: here, the Gibbôr is a man, whose personal prowess and energy raise him above the common level of humanity. The word expresses the idea of violent, tyrannical power, like Arabic _ǧabbār_.

If the כּוּשׁ of verse ⁶ ᶠᐧ be Ethiopia (see page 200 f.), it
follows that in the view of the redactor the earliest dynasty
in the Euphrates valley was founded by immigrants from Africa.
That interpretation was accepted even by Tuch; but it is opposed
to all we know of the early history of Babylonia, and it is
extremely improbable that it represents a Hebrew tradition. The
assumption of a South Arabian Kûsh would relieve the difficulty;
for it is generally agreed that the _Semitic_ population of
Babylonia――which goes back as far as monumental evidence carries
us――actually came from Arabia; but it is entirely opposed
to the ethnography of Yahwist, who peoples South Arabia with
descendants of Shem (²¹ᐧ ²⁵ ᶠᶠᐧ). It is therefore not unlikely
that, as many Assyriologists think,¹ Yahwist’s כּוּשׁ is quite
independent of the Hamitic Kûsh of Priestly-Code, and denotes
the _Kaš_ or _Kaššu_, a people who conquered Babylonia in the
18th century, and set up a dynasty (the 3rd) which reigned there
for 600 years² (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³,
21). It is conceivable that in consequence of so prolonged a
supremacy, Kaš might have become a name for Babylonia, and that
Yahwist’s knowledge of its history did not extend farther back
than the Kaššite dynasty. Since there is no reason to suppose
that Yahwist regarded Kaš as Hamitic, it is quite possible that
the name belonged to his list of Japhetic peoples.

¹ See Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 51‒55; Schrader _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 87 f.; Winckler
_Alttestamentliche Untersuchungen_, 146 ff.; Jensen
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vi. 340‒2; Sayce, _The
Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments_², 148
ff., etc.

² Remnants of this conquering race are mentioned by
Sennacherib (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, ii. 87). They
are thought to be identical with the Κοσσαῖοι of the Greeks
(Strabo, XI. xiii. 6, XVI. i. 17 f.; Arrian, _Anabasis_ vii.
15; Diodorus, xvii. 111, xix. 19, etc.); and probably also
with the Κίσσιοι of Herodotus vii. 62, 86, etc. (compare v.
49, 52, vi. 119). Compare Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_
31, 124, 127 ff.; Meyer _Geschichte des Alterthums_¹, § 129;
Winckler _Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriens_, 78 ff.;
Schrader _Keilinschriften und Geschichtsforschung_, 176 f.;
Oppert, _Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, iii. 421 ff.; Jensen
_Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_,
l. 244 f., etc.

* * * * *

=8.= נִמְרֹד (Νεβρωδ)] The Hebrew naturally connects the name with the √ מרד = ‘rebel’ (Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Rashi, al.): see below, page 209.――הוּא הֵחֵל לִ׳] ‘he was the first to become’; see on 4²⁶ 9²⁰.

* * * * *

=9.= Nimrod was not only a great tyrant and ruler of men, but _a hero of the chase_ (גִּבּוֹר צַיִד). The verse breaks the connexion between ⁸ and ¹⁰, and is probably an interpolation (Dillmann al.); although, as Delitzsch remarks, the union of a passion for the chase with warlike prowess makes Nimrod a true prototype of the Assyrian monarchs,――an observation amply illustrated by the many hunting scenes sculptured on the monuments.――_Therefore it is said_] introducing a current proverb; compare 1 Samuel 19²⁴ with 10¹²; Genesis 22¹⁴ etc. “When the Hebrews wished to describe a man as being a great hunter, they spoke of him as ‘like Nimrod’” (Driver).――The expression לִפְנֵי יהוה doubtless belongs to the proverb: the precise meaning is obscure (_v.i._).

A perfectly convincing Assyriological prototype of the figure
of Nimrod has not as yet been discovered. The derivation of the
name from Marduk, the tutelary deity of the city of Babylon,
first propounded by Sayce, and adopted with modifications
by Wellhausen,¹ still commends itself to some Assyriologists
(Pinches, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, iii. 552 f.; compare _Die
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 581); but the material
points of contact between the two personages seem too vague
to establish an instructive parallel. The identification with
Nazi-Maruttaš, a late (_circa_ 1350) and apparently not very
successful king of the Kaššite dynasty (Haupt, Hilprecht,
Sayce, al.), is also unsatisfying: the supposition that that
particular king was so well known in Palestine as to eclipse
all his predecessors, and take rank as the founder of Babylonian
civilisation, is improbable. The nearest analogy is that of
Gilgameš,² the legendary tyrant of Erech (see verse ¹⁰), whose
adventures are recorded in the famous series of Tablets of which
the Deluge story occupies the eleventh (see page 175 above,
and _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 566 ff.).
Gilgameš is a true Gibbôr――“two parts deity and one part
humanity”――he builds the walls of Erech with forced labour, and
his subjects groan under his tyranny, until they cry to Aruru
to create a rival who might draw off some of his superabundant
energy (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, vi. 1, 117, 119). Among
his exploits, and those of his companion Ea-bani, contests with
beasts and monsters figure prominently; and he is supposed to
be the hero so often represented on seals and palace-reliefs in
victorious combat with a lion (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte
des alten Orients_², 266 f.). It is true that the parallel
is incomplete; and (what is more important) that the name
Nimrod remains unexplained. The expectation that the phonetic
reading of the ideographic _GIŠ. ṬU. BAR_ might prove to be the
Babylonian equivalent of the Hebrew Nimrod, would seem to have
been finally dispelled by the discovery (in 1890) of the correct
pronunciation as Gilgameš (but see Jeremias _l.c._). Still,
enough general resemblance remains to warrant the belief that
the original of the biblical Nimrod belongs to the sphere of
Babylonian mythology. A striking parallel to the visit of
Gilgameš to his father Ut-napištim occurs in a late Nimrod
legend, preserved in the Syrian _Schatzhöhle_ (see Gunkel
_Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit_ 146²; Lidzbarski
_Zeitschrift für Assyriologie_, vii. 15). On the theory which
connects Nimrod with the constellation Orion, see Tuch _ad loc._;
Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 395 f.; _Die Keilinschriften
und das Alte Testament_³, 581²; and on the late Jewish and
Mohammedan legends generally, Seligsohn, _Jewish Encyclopædia_,
ix. 309 ff.

¹ Sayce (_Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archæology_,
ii. 243 ff.) derived it from the Akkadian equivalent of
Marduk, _Amar-ud_, from which he thought _Nimrudu_ would
be a regular (Assyrian) Niphal form. Wellhausen (_Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher
des Alten Testaments_² 309 f.) explains the נ as an Aramaic
imperfect preformative to the √ מרד, a corruption from
Mard-uk which took place among the Syrians of Mesopotamia,
through whom the myth reached the Hebrews.

² So Smith-Sayce, _Chaldean Account of Genesis_ 176 ff.;
Jeremias _Isdubar-Nimrod._

* * * * *

=9.= While Dillmann regards the verse as an interpolation from
oral tradition, Budde (_Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 390 ff.)
assigns it to his Yahwist¹, and finds a place for it between 6⁴
and 11¹,――a precarious suggestion.――יהוה¹] LXX + τοῦ θεοῦ.――לִפְנֵי י׳]
‘before Yahwe.’ The phrase is variously explained: (1) ‘unique,’
like לאלהים in Jonah 3³ (Dillmann al.); (2) ‘in the estimation
of Yahwe’ (compare 2 Kings 5¹ etc.); (3) ‘in despite of Yahwe’
(Budde); (4) ‘with the assistance of Yahwe’――the name of some
god of the chase having stood in the original myth (Gunkel);
(5) ‘in the constant presence of Yahwe’――an allusion to the
constellation Orion (Holzinger). The last view is possible in ⁹ᵇ,
but hardly in ᵃ, because of the היה. A sober exegesis will prefer
(1) or (2).

* * * * *

=10.= _The nucleus of his empire was Babylon ... in the land of Shin‛ar_] It is not said that Nimrod founded these four cities (contrast verse ¹¹). The rise of the great cities of Babylonia was not only much older than the Kaššite dynasty, but probably preceded the establishment of any central government; and the peculiar form of the expression here may be due to a recollection of that fact. Of the four cities, two can be absolutely identified; the third is known by name, but cannot be located; and the last is altogether uncertain.

בָּבֶל (Βαβυλών)] the Hebrew form of the native _Bāb-ili_ = ‘gate of
God’ or ‘the gods’ (though this may be only a popular etymology).
The political supremacy of the city, whose origin is unknown,
dates from the expulsion of the Elamites by Ḥammurabi, the
sixth king of its first dynasty (_circa_ 2100 B.C.); and for
2000 years it remained the chief centre of ancient Oriental
civilisation. Its ruins lie on the left bank of the Euphrates,
about fifty miles due South of Baghdad.

אֶרֶךְ (Ὀρεχ)] the Babylonian _Uruk_ or _Arku_, now _Warka_, also on
the Euphrates, about 100 miles South-east of Babylon. It was the
city of Gilgameš (_v.s._).

אַכַּד (Ἀρχαδ: compare דַּמֶּשֶׂק and דַּרְמֶשֶׂק)] The name (_Akkad_) frequently
occurs in the inscriptions, especially in the phrase ‘Šumer and
Akkad,’ = South and North Babylonia. But a city of Akkad is also
mentioned by Nebuchadnezzar I. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_,
iii. 170 ff.), though its site is uncertain. Its identity with
the Agadé of Sargon I. (_circa_ 3800 B.C.), which was formerly
suspected, is said to be confirmed by a recent decipherment.
Delitzsch and Zimmern suppose that it was close to Sippar
on the Euphrates, in the latitude of Baghdad (see _Wo lag
das Paradies?_ 209 ff.; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 422², 423⁸; _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 270).

כַּלְנֵה (Χαλαννη)] Not to be confused with the כלנה of Amos 6² (= כַּלְנוֹ,
Isaiah 10⁹), which was in North Syria. The Babylonian Kalne has
not yet been discovered. Delitzsch (_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 225)
takes it to be the ideogram _Kul-unu_ (pronounced _Zirlahu_),
of a city in the vicinity of Babylon. But Jensen (_Theologische
Litteraturzeitung_ 1895, 510) asserts that the real
pronunciation was _Kullab(a)_, and proposes to read so here
(כֻּלָּבָה).

שִׁנְעָר (Σεν[ν]ααρ)] apparently the old Hebrew name for Babylonia
proper (11² 14¹ᐧ ⁹, Joshua 7²¹, Isaiah 11¹¹, Zechariah 5¹¹,
Daniel 1²), afterwards ארץ כשדים or simply [א׳] בבל. That it is the
same as Šumer (_south_ Babylonia: _v.s._) is improbable. More
plausible is the identification with the _Šanḫar_ of Tel-Amarna
Tablets (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 83) = Egyptian
_Sangara_ (Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 279); though Winckler (_Altorientalische
Forschungen_, i. 240, 399; _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte
Testament_³, 31) puts it North of the Taurus. _Ǧebel Sinǧar_ (ὁ
Σιγγαρος ὄρος: Ptolemy v. 18. 2), West of Nineveh, is much too
far north for the biblical Shin‛ar, unless the name had wandered.

=11, 12.= The colonisation of Assyria from Babylonia.――_From that land he_ (Nimrod, _v.i._) _went out to Assyria_]――where he built four new cities. That the great Assyrian cities were not really built by one king or at one period is certain; nevertheless the statement has a certain historic value, inasmuch as the whole religion, culture, and political organisation of Assyria were derived from the southern state. It is also noteworthy that the rise of the Assyrian power dates from the decline of Babylonia under the Kaššite kings (_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 21). In Micah 5⁵ Assyria is described as the ‘land of Nimrod.’

That אַשּׁוּר is here the name of the land (along the Tigris, North
of the Lower Zab), and not the ancient capital (now _Ḳal‛at
Šerkāt_, about halfway between the mouths of the two Zabs), is
plain from the context, and the contrast to שנער in verse ¹⁰.

נִינְוֵה] (Assyrian _Ninua_, _Ninâ_, LXX Νινευη [-ι]) the foremost
city of Assyria, was a royal residence from at the latest the
time of Aššur-bel-kalu, son of Tiglath-pileser I. (11th century);
but did not apparently become the political capital till the
reign of Sennacherib (Winckler _Geschichte Babyloniens und
Assyriens_, 146). Its site is now marked by the ruined mounds of
_Nebī Yūnus_ (with a village named _Nunia_) and _Kuyunjiḳ_, both
on the East side of the Tigris opposite Mosul (see Hilprecht
_Explorations in Bible Lands during the 19th century_, 11,
88‒138).

רְחֹבֹת עִיר (Ῥοωβὼς πόλιν)] has in Hebrew appellative significance
= ‘broad places of a city’ (Vulgate _plateas civitatis_).
A similar phrase on Assyrian monuments, _rêbit Ninâ_, is
understood to mean ‘suburb of Nineveh’; and it has been supposed
that ר׳ ע׳ is a translation of this designation into Hebrew. As
to the position of this ‘suburb’ authorities differ. Delitzsch
(_Wo lag das Paradies?_ 260 f.) thinks it certain that it was on
the North or North-east side of Nineveh, towards Dûr-Sargon (the
modern Khorsabad); and Johns (_Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4029)
even identifies it with the latter (compare _Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 47). Billerbeck, on the other hand, places it
at Mosul on the opposite side of the Tigris, as a sort of _tête
du pont_ (see _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
273). No _proper_ name at all resembling this is known in the
neighbourhood of Nineveh.

כֶּלַח (Χαλαχ, Καλαχ) is the Assyrian _Kalḫu_ or _Kalaḫ_, which
excavations have proved to be the modern _Nimrûd_, at the mouth
of the Upper Zab, 20 miles South of Nineveh (Hilprecht _l.c._
111 f.). Built by Shalmaneser I. (_circa_ 1300), it replaced
Aššur as the capital, but afterwards fell into decay, and
was restored by Aššur-nasir-pal (883‒59) (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, i. 117). From that time till Sargon, it seems to
have continued the royal residence.

רֶסֶן (Δασεμ, Δαση, etc.)] Perhaps = _Riš-îni_ (‘fountain-head’),
an extremely common place-name in Semitic countries; but its
site is unknown. A Syrian tradition placed it at the ruins of
Khorsabad, ‘a parasang above Nineveh,’ where a _Rās ’ul-‛Ain_ is
said still to be found (G. Hoffmann in Nestle, _Zeitschrift der
deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, lviii. 158 ff.). This
is doubtless the Riš-ini of Sennacherib (_Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek_, ii. 117); but its identity with רסן is phonetically
questionable, and topographically impossible, on account of the
definition ‘between Nineveh and Kelaḥ.’

The clause הוא העיר הגדלה is almost universally, but very improbably,
taken to imply that the four places just enumerated had come to
be regarded as a single city. Schrader (_Die Keilinschriften und
das Alte Testament_², 99 f.) is responsible for the statement
that from the time of Sennacherib the name Nineveh was extended
to include the whole complex of cities between the Zab and the
Tigris; but more recent authorities assure us that the monuments
contain no trace of such an idea (_Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_³, 75⁴; Gunkel² 78; compare Johns, _Encyclopædia
Biblica_, 3420). The fabulous dimensions given by Diodorus (ii.
3; compare Jonah 3³ ᶠᐧ) must proceed on some such notion; and
it is possible that that might have induced a late interpolator
to insert the sentence here. But if the words be a gloss, it
is more probable that it springs from the העיר הגדולה of Jonah 1²,
which was put in the margin opposite נִינְוֵה, and crept into the
text in the wrong place (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten
Orients_², 273).¹

¹ With the above hypothesis, Schrader’s argument that, since
Nineveh is here used in the restricted sense, the passage
must be of earlier date than Sennacherib, falls to the
ground. From the writer’s silence regarding Aššur, the
ancient capital, it may safely be inferred that he lived
after 1300; and from the omission of Sargon’s new residence
Dûr-Sargon, it is _probable_ that he wrote before 722. But
the latter argument is not decisive, since Kelaḥ and Nineveh
(the only names that can be positively identified) were both
flourishing cities down to the fall of the Empire.

* * * * *

=11.= יָצָא אַשּׁוּר] ‘he went out to Asshur’ (so Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Calvin,
and all moderns). The rendering ‘Asshur went out’ (LXX, Vulgate,
Peshiṭtå, Targumᴼⁿᵏᵉˡᵒˢ, Jerome, al.) is grammatically correct,
and gives a good sense (compare Isaiah 23¹³). But (1) ראשית
(verse ¹⁰) requires an antithesis (see on 1¹); and (2) in Micah
5⁵ Nimrod is the hero of Assyria.

* * * * *

=13, 14.――The sons of Mizraim.=――These doubtless all represent parts or (supposed) dependencies of Egypt; although of the eight names not more than two can be certainly identified.――On מִצְרַיִם = Egypt, see verse ⁶.――Since Mizraim could hardly have been reckoned a son of Canaan, the section (if documentary) must be an extract from that Yahwistic source to which 9¹⁸ ᶠᐧ belong (see page 188 f.).

(1) לוּדים (Λουδιειμ: 1 Chronicles 1¹¹ לודיים)] Not the Lydians of
Asia Minor (_Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients_²,
274), who can hardly be thought of in this connexion; but (if
the text be correct) some unknown people of North-east Africa
(see on verse ²², page 206). The prevalent view of recent
scholars is that the word is a mistake for לוּבִים, the Lybians.
See Stade _Ausgewählte akademische Reden und Abhandlungen_ 141;
Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 115
f.; _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_, v. 475; al.

(2) עֲנָמִים (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ עינמים; LXX
Αἰν-[Ἐν-]εμετιειμ[ν])] Müller reads כנמים or (after LXX) כנמתים;
_i.e._ the inhabitants of the Great Oasis of _Knmt_ in the
Libyan desert (_Wāḥāt el-Khāriǧah_).¹ For older conjectures see
Dillmann.

¹ _Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ v. 471 ff.――It should be
explained that this dissertation, frequently cited above,
proceeds on the bold assumption that almost the best known
name in the section (פַּתְרֻסִים, ¹⁴) is an interpolation. When
this ‘cuckoo’s egg’ is ejected, the author finds that the
‘sons’ of Egypt are all dependencies or foreign possessions,
and are to be sought _outside_ the Nile valley. The theory
does not seem to have found much favour from Egyptologists
or others.

(3) לְהָבִים (Λαβιειμ)] commonly supposed to be the Lybians, the ((לוּב) לוּבִים) of Nahum 3⁹, Daniel 11⁴³, 2 Chronicles 12³ 16⁸, [Ezekiel 30⁵?]. Müller thinks it a variant of לוּדִים (1).

(4) נַפְתֻּחִים (Νεφθαλιειμ)] Müller proposes פתנחים = _P-to-n-‛ḥe_,
‘cowland,’――the name of the Oasis of _Farāfra_. But there is
a strong presumption that, as the next name stands for Upper
Egypt, this will be a designation of Lower Egypt. So Erman
(_Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, x.
118 f.), who reads פתמחים = _p-t-maḥī_, ‘the north-land,’――at
all periods the native name of Lower Egypt. More recently
Spiegelberg (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ ix. 276 ff.)
recognises in it an old name of the Delta, and reads without
textual change _Na-patûh_ = ‘the people of the Delta.’

(5) פַּתְרֻסִים (Πατροσωνιειμ)] the inhabitants of פַּתְרוֹס (Isaiah 11¹¹,
Jeremiah 44¹ᐧ ¹⁵, Ezekiel 30¹⁴), _i.e._ Upper Egypt: _P-to-reši_
= ‘south-land’ (Assyrian _paturisi_): see Erman, _l.c._

(6) כַּסְלֻחִים (Χασμωνιείμ)] Doubtful conjectures in Dillmann. Müller
restores with help of LXX נסמנים, which he identifies with the
Νασαμῶνες of Herodotus ii. 32, iv. 172, 182, 190,――a powerful
tribe of nomad Lybians, near the Oasis of Amon. Sayce has
read the name _Kasluhat_ on the inscription of Ombos (see on
_Kaphtorim_, below); _Man_, 1903, No. 77.

(7) פְּלִשְׁתִּים (Φυλιστιειμ)] The Philistines are here spoken of as
an offshoot of the Kaslûḥîm,――a statement scarcely intelligible
in the light of other passages (Jeremiah 47⁴, Amos 9⁷; compare
Deuteronomy 2²³), according to which the Philistines came from
_Kaphtōr_. The clause אֲשׁר יָֽצְאוּ מִשָּׁם פּ׳ is therefore in all probability
a marginal gloss meant to come after כפתרים.――The Philistines are
mentioned in the Egyptian monuments, under the name _Purašati_,
as the leading people in a great invasion of Syria in the reign
of Ramses III. (_circa_ 1175 B.C.). The invaders came both by
land and sea from the coasts of Asia Minor and the islands of
the Ægean; and the Philistines established themselves on the
South coast of Palestine so firmly that, though nearly all
traces of their language and civilisation have disappeared,
their name has clung to the country ever since. See Müller,
_Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 387‒90, and
_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, v. 2 ff.;
Moore, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iii. 3713 ff.

(8) כַּפְתֹּרִים (Χαφθοριειμ)] _Kaphtōr_ (Deuteronomy 2²³, Amos 9⁷,
Jeremiah 47⁴) has usually been taken for the island of Crete
(see Dillmann), mainly because of the repeated association of
כְּרֵתִים (Cretans?) with the Philistines and the Philistine territory
(1 Samuel 30¹⁴ᐧ ¹⁶, Ezekiel 25¹⁶, Zephaniah 2⁵). There are
convincing reasons for connecting it with _Keftiu_ (properly
‘the country _behind_’), an old Egyptian name for the ‘lands of
the Great Ring’ (the Eastern Mediterranean), or the ‘isles of
the Great Green,’ _i.e._ South-west Asia Minor, Rhodes, Crete,
and the Mycenian lands beyond, to the North-west of Egypt (see
Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 337,
344‒53, 387 ff.; and more fully H. R. Hall in _Annual of the
British School at Athens_, 1901‒2, pages 162‒6). The precise
phonetic equivalent _Kptār_ has been found on a late mural
decoration at Ombos (Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the
Verdict of the Monuments_⁶, 173; _The Early History of the
Hebrews_, 291; Müller, _Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen
Gesellschaft_, 1900, 5 ff.). “_Keftiu_ is the old Egyptian name
of Caphtor (Crete), _Keptar_ a Ptolemaic doublet of it, taken
over when the original meaning of _Keftiu_ had been forgotten,
and the name had been erroneously applied to Phœnicia” (Hall,
_Man_, November, 1903, No. 92, page 162 ff.). In _Orientalische
Litteraturzeitung_, M. questions the originality of the name in
this passage: so also Jeremias _Das Alte Testament im Lichte des
alten Orients_², 275.¹

¹ Verse ¹³ ᶠᐧ present so many peculiar features――the regular
use of the plural, the great preponderance of quadriliteral
names, all vocalised alike――that we can hardly help
suspecting that they are a secondary addition to the Table,
written from specially intimate acquaintance with the
(later?) Egyptian geography.

=15‒19. The Canaanites.=――The peoples assigned to the Canaanitish group are (1) the Phœnicians (צִידֹן), (2) the Ḥittites (חֵת), and (3) a number of petty communities perhaps summed up in the phrase מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הַֽכְּנַעֲנִי in ¹⁸ᵇ. It is surprising to find the great northern nation of the Ḥittites classed as a subdivision of the Canaanites. The writer may be supposed to have in view offshoots of that empire, which survived as small enclaves in Palestine proper; but that explanation does not account for the marked prominence given to Ḥeth over the little Canaanite kingships. On the other hand, one hesitates to adopt Gunkel’s theory that כנען is here used in a wide geographical sense as embracing the main seats of the Ḥittite empire (page 187). There is evidence, however, of a strong settlement of Ḥittites near Ḥermon (see below), and it is conceivable that these were classed as Canaanites and so inserted here.

Critically, the verses are difficult. Wellhausen (_Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten
Testaments_² 15) and others remove ¹⁶⁻¹⁸ᵃ as a gloss: because
(a) the boundaries laid down in ¹⁹ are exceeded in ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ, and
(b) the mention of a _subsequent_ dispersion of Canaanites (¹⁸ᵇ)
has no meaning after ¹⁶⁻¹⁸ᵃ. That is perhaps the most reasonable
view to take; but even so ¹⁸ᵇ does not read quite naturally
after ¹⁵; and what could have induced a glossator to insert four
of the most northerly Phœnician cities, passing by those best
known to the Hebrews? Is it possible that the last five names
were originally given as sons of Heth, and the previous four as
sons of Zidon? ¹⁸ᵇ might mean that the Canaanite clans emanated
from Phœnicia, and were _afterwards_ ‘dispersed’ over the region
defined by ¹⁹.――The change from כנען in ¹⁵ to הכנעני in ¹⁸ᵇᐧ ¹⁹ is
hardly sufficient to prove diversity of authorship (Gunkel).

צִידֹן] The oldest of the Phœnician cities; now Ṣaidā, nearly 30
miles South of the promontory of Beirūt. Here, however, the name
is the eponym of the Ẓidonians (צִידֹנִים), as the Phœnicians were
frequently called, not only in the Old Testament (Judges 18⁷ 3³,
1 Kings 5²⁰ 16³¹ etc.) and Homer (_Iliad_ vi. 290 f., etc.), but
on the Assyrian monuments, and even by the Phœnicians themselves
(Meyer _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4504).

חֵת (τὸν Χετταῖον)] elsewhere only in the phrases בְּנֵי ח׳, בְּנוֹת ח׳
(chapter 23 _passim_ 25¹⁰ 27⁴⁶ᵇ 49³² [all Priestly-Code]);
other writers speak of חִתִּי[ם]. The Ḥittites (Egyptian _Ḫeta_,
Assyrian _Ḫatti_) were a northern non-Semitic people, who under
unknown circumstances established themselves in Cappadocia.
They appear to have invaded Babylonia at the close of the First
dynasty (_circa_ 1930 B.C.) (King, _Chronicles concerning early
Babylonian kings_, page 72 f.). Not long after the time of
Thothmes III. (1501‒1447), they are found in North Syria. With
the weakening of the Egyptian supremacy in the Tel-Amarna period,
they pressed further South, occupying the Orontes valley, and
threatening the Phœnician coast-cities. The indecisive campaigns
of Ramses II. seem to have checked their southward movement.
In Assyrian records they do not appear till the reign of
Tiglath-pileser I. (_circa_ 1100), when they seem to have held
the country from the Taurus and Orontes to the Euphrates, with
Carchemish as one of their chief strongholds. After centuries
of intermittent warfare, they were finally incorporated in
the Assyrian Empire by Sargon II. (_circa_ 717). See Paton,
_The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 104 ff.――The Old
Testament allusions to the Ḥittites are extremely confusing,
and cannot be fully discussed here: see on 15¹⁹⁻²¹ 23³. Besides
the Palestinian Ḥittites (whose connexion with the people just
spoken of may be doubtful), there is mention of an extensive
Ḥittite country to the North of Palestine (2 Samuel 24⁶
[LXXᴸᵘᶜⁱᵃⁿ], 1 Kings 10²⁹, 2 Kings 7⁶ al.). The most important
fact for the present purpose is the definite location of
Ḥittites in the Lebanon region, or at the foot of Hermon (Joshua
11³ [LXXᴮᐧ ᵃˡᐧ] and Judges 3³ [as amended by Meyer al.]), compare
Judges 1²⁶?). It does not appear what grounds Moore (_Judges_
82) has for the statement that these Ḥittites were Semitic.
There is certainly no justification for treating (with Jastrow
_Encyclopædia Biblica_, 2094) חֵת in this verse as a gloss.

The four names which follow are names of Canaanitish clans which
constantly recur in enumerations of the aborigines of Palestine,
and seldom elsewhere.

(1) הַיְבוּסִי] The clan settled in and around Jerusalem: Joshua 15⁸
18²⁸, Judges 19¹⁰, 2 Samuel 5⁶⁻⁹ etc.

(2) הָֽאֱמֹרִי] An important politico-geographical name in the
Egyptian and cuneiform documents (Egyptian _Amor_, etc.,
Assyrian _Amurru_). In the Tel-Amarna Tablets the ‘land
of Amurru’ denotes the Lebanon region behind the Phœnician
coast-territory. Its princes Abd-Aširta and Aziru were then
the most active enemies of the Egyptian authority in the
north, conducting successful operations against several of
the Phœnician cities. It has been supposed that subsequently
to these events the Amorites pressed southwards, and founded
kingdoms in Palestine both East and West of the Jordan (Numbers
21¹³ ᶠᶠᐧ, Joshua 24⁸ etc.); though Müller has pointed out some
difficulties in the way of that hypothesis (_Asien und Europa
nach altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 230 f.).――In the Old Testament
there appears an occasional tendency to restrict the name
to ‘highlanders’ (Numbers 13²⁹, Deuteronomy 1⁷), but this is
more than neutralised by other passages (Judges 1³⁴). The most
significant fact is that Elohist (followed by D) employs the
term to designate the pre-Israelite inhabitants of Palestine
generally (compare Amos 2⁹ ᶠᐧ), whom Yahwist describes as
Canaanites. Apart from the assumption of an actual Amorite
domination, it is difficult to suggest an explanation of
Elohist’s usage, unless we can take it as a survival of the old
Babylonian name Amurru (or at least its ideographic equivalent
_MAR. TU_) for Palestine, Phœnicia and Cœle-Syria.――See,
further, Müller, _Asien und Europa nach altägyptischen
Denkmälern_, 218 ff., 229 ff.; Winckler _Geschichte Israels
in Einzeldarstellungen_, i. 51‒54, _Die Keilinschriften und
das Alte Testament_³, 178 ff.; Meyer _Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, i. 122 ff.; Wellhausen _Die
Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 341; Budde _Die biblische Urgeschichte_ 344
ff.; Driver _Deuteronomy_ 11 f., _Genesis_ 125 f.; Sayce, _A
Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 84 f.; Paton, _The Early History of
Syria and Palestine_ 25‒46, 115 ff., 147 f.; Meyer _Geschichte
des Alterthums_², 1. ii. § 396.

(3) ה ַגִּרְגָּשִׁי] only mentioned in enumerations (15²¹, Deuteronomy 7¹,
Joshua 3¹⁰ 24¹¹, Nehemiah 9⁸) without indication of locality.
גרגש, גרגשים, גדגשי occur as proper names on Punic inscriptions.
(Lidzbarski, _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_ 405₄,
622₄_{f.}, 673₃; _Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik_ i. 36,
308). Ewald conjectured a connexion with New Testament Γέργεσα.

(4) הַחִוִּי (τὸν Εὑαῖον)] a tribe of central Palestine, in the
neighbourhood of Shechem (34²) and Gibeon (Joshua 9⁷); in Judges
3³, where they are spoken of in the North, הַחִתִּי should be read,
and in Joshua 11³ Hittites and Hivvites should be transposed in
accordance with LXXᴮ. The name has been explained by Gesenius
(_Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ
Veteris Testamenti_) and others as meaning ‘dwellers in חַוֹּת’
(Bedouin encampments: compare Numbers 32⁴¹); but that is
improbable in the case of a people long settled in Palestine
(Moore). Wellhausen (_Reste arabischen Heidentums_ 154)
more plausibly connects it with חַוָּה = ‘serpent’ (see on 3²⁰),
surmising that the Hivvites were a snake-clan. Compare Lagarde,
_Onomastica Sacra_, 187, 174, line 97 (Εὑαῖοι σκολιοὶ ὡς ἐπὶ
ὄφεις).

The 5 remaining names are formed from names of _cities_, 4 in
the extreme North of Phœnicia, and the last in Cœle-Syria.

(5) הָעַרְקִי (_The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ הערוקי, LXX
τὸν Ἀρουκαῖον)] is from the city Ἄρκη ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ (Josephus
_Antiquities of the Jews_ i. 138), the ruins of which, still
bearing the name _Tell ‛Arḳa_, are found on the coast about
12 miles North-east of Tripolis. It is mentioned by Thothmes
III. (in the form _‛r-ka-n-tu_: see _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 247 f.), and in Tel-Amarna letters
(_Irkata_: _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, v. 171, etc.); also
by Shalmaneser II. (_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 173;
along with Arvad and Sianu, _below_), and Tiglath-pileser IV.
(_ib._ ii. 29; along with Ṣimirra and Sianu).

(6) הַסִּינִי (τὸν Ἁσενναῖον)] inhabitants of סִיָּן, Assyrian _Sianu_
(_Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, _ll.cc._). Jerome (_Quæstiones
sive Traditiones hebraicæ in Genesim_) says it was not far from
‛Arḳa, but adds that only the name remained in his day. The site
is unknown: see Cooke, _Encyclopædia Biblica_, iv. 4644 f.

(7) הָאַרְוָדִי (τὸν Ἀράδιον)] ’Arwad (Ezekiel 27⁸ᐧ ¹¹) was the most
northerly of the Phœnician cities, built on a small island
(Strabo, XVI. ii. 13; _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, i. 109)
about 35 miles North of Tripolis (now _Ruād_). It is named
frequently, in connexions which show its great importance in
ancient times, in Egyptian inscriptions (_Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 186 f.), on Tel-Amarna Tablets,
and by Assyrian kings from Tiglath-pileser I. to Asshurbanipal
(_Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_², 104 f.;
Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 281); see also Herodotus
vii. 98.

(8) הַצְּמָרִי (τὸν Σαμαραῖον)] Six miles South of Ruād, the modern
village of _Ṣumra_ preserves the name of this city: Egyptian
_Ṣamar_; Tel-Amarna Tablets _Ṣumur_; Assyrian _Ṣimirra_;
Greek Σιμυρα. See Strabo, XVI. ii. 12; _Asien und Europa nach
altägyptischen Denkmälern_, 187; _Die Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament_², 105; Delitzsch _Wo lag das Paradies?_ 281 f.

(9) הַחֲמָתִי (τὸν Ἁμαθί)] from the well-known Ḥamath on the Orontes;
now _Ḥamā_.

The delimitation of the Canaanite boundary in verse ¹⁹ is very
obscure. It describes two sides of a triangle, from Ẓidon on
the North to Gaza or Gerar in the South-west; and from thence
to a point near the South end of the Dead Sea. The terminus לֶשֶׂע
(LXX Δασα) is, however, unknown. The traditional identification
(Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ, Jerome) with Καλλιῤῥόη, near the North end
of the Dead Sea, is obviously unsuitable. Kittel, _Biblia
Hebraica_ (very improbably), suggests בֶּלַע (14²). Wellhausen
(_Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des
Alten Testaments_² 15) reads לֵשָׁה or לֵשָׁם (Joshua 19⁴⁷ לֶשֶׁם) = ‘to
Dan’ (לַיִשׁ), the conventional _northern_ limit of Canaan,――thus
completing the East side of the triangle.――Gerar were certainly
further South than Gaza (see on 20¹); hence we cannot read
‘_as far as_ (_v.i._) Gerar, up to Gaza,’ while the rendering
‘_in the direction of_ Gerar, as far as Gaza,’ would only be
intelligible if Gerar were a better known locality than Gaza.
Most probably עַד־עַזָּה is a gloss (Gunkel al.).――On the situation
of Sodom, etc., see on chapter 19.――On any construction of
the verse the northern cities of ¹⁷ᐧ ¹⁸ᵃ are excluded.――_The
Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_ has an entirely different
text: מנהר מצרים עד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת ועד הים האחרון,――an amalgam of 15¹⁸ and
Deuteronomy 11²⁴.

* * * * *

=15.= בְּכֹרוֹ] compare 22²¹ (Yahwist).――=18.= אַחַר] adverb of time, as
18⁵ 24⁵⁵ 30²¹ etc. = אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵן: see Brown-Driver-Briggs, 29 f.――נָפֹצוּ]
Niphal from √ פוץ; see on 9¹⁹: compare 11⁴ᐧ ⁸ᐧ ⁹.――מִשְׁפְּחֹת הַכְּנַֽעֲנִי] can
hardly, even if the clause be a gloss, denote the Phœnician
colonies on the Mediterranean (Brown, _Encyclopædia Biblica_,
ii. 1698 f.).――=19.= בֹּֽאֲכָה] ‘as one comes’ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch
§ 144 _h_) might be taken as ‘in the direction of’ (so Dillmann,
Driver, al.); but there does not appear to be any clear case in
which the expression differs from עַד־בּֽוֹאֲךָ = ‘as far as’ (compare
10³⁰ 13¹⁰ 25¹⁸ [all Yahwist], 1 Samuel 15⁷ with Judges 6⁴ 11³³,
1 Samuel 17⁵², 2 Samuel 5²⁵, 1 Kings 18⁴⁶).――עַד־עַזָּה] LXX καὶ Γάζαν.

* * * * *

=21, 24, 25-30. The Shemites.=――The genealogy of Shem in Yahwist resolves itself entirely into a classification of the peoples whose origin was traced to ‛Eber. These fall into two main branches: the descendants of Peleg (who are not here enumerated), and the Yoḳṭanites or South Arabian tribes. Shem is thus nothing more than the representative of the unity of the widely scattered Hebraic stock: Shemite and ‘Hebrew’ are convertible terms. This recognition of the ethnological affinity of the northern and southern Semites is a remarkable contrast to Priestly-Code, who assigns the South Arabians to Ḥam,――the family with which Israel had least desire to be associated.

עֵבֶר is the eponym of עִבְרִים (Hebrews), the name by which the
Israelites are often designated in distinction from other
peoples, down to the time of Saul¹ (see Gesenius-Kautzsch § 2 b:
the passages are cited in Brown-Driver-Briggs, _s.v._). It is
strange at first sight that while the בני עבר of verse ²¹ include
all Shemites known to Yahwist, the gentilic word is historically
restricted to Israelites. The difficulty is perhaps removed
by the still disputed, but now widely accepted, theory that
_Ḫabiri_ in the Tel-Amarna letters is the cuneiform equivalent
of the Old Testament עִבְרִים. The equation presents no philological
difficulty: Assyrian _ḫ_ often represents a foreign ע; and
Eerdmans’ statement (_Alttestamentliche Studien_, ii. 64), that
the sign _ḫa_ never stands for עִ (if true) is worthless, for
_Ḫa-za-ḳi-ya-u_ = חִזקיהו shows that Assyrian _a_ may become in the
Old Testament _i_, and this is all that it is necessary to prove.
The historical objections vanish if the Ḫabiri be identified,
not with the Israelitish invaders after the Exodus, but with
an earlier immigration of Semitic nomads into Palestine,
amongst whom the ancestors of Israel were included. The chief
uncertainty arises from the fact that the phonetic writing
_Ḫa-bi-ri_ occurs only in a limited group of letters,――those of
‛Abd-ḫiba of Jerusalem (179, 180 [182], 183, 185). The ideogram
_SA. GAS_ (‘robbers’) in other letters is conjectured to
have the same value, but this is not absolutely demonstrated.
Assuming that Winckler and others are right in equating the two,
the Ḫabiri are in evidence over the whole country, occasionally
as auxiliaries of the Egyptian government, but chiefly as its
foes. The inference is very plausible that they were the roving
Bedouin element of the population, as opposed to the settled
inhabitants,――presumably a branch of the great Aramæan invasion
which was then overflowing Mesopotamia and Syria (see above,
page 206; compare Winckler _Altorientalische Forschungen_, iii.
90 ff., _Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament_³, 196 ff.;
Paton, _The Early History of Syria and Palestine_ 111 ff.).
There is thus a strong probability that עברים was originally
the name of a group of tribes which invaded Palestine in
the 15th century B.C., and that it was afterwards applied
to the Israelites as the sole historic survivors of the
immigrants.――Etymologically, the word has usually been
interpreted as meaning ‘those from beyond’ the river (compare
עֵבֶר הַנָּהָר, Joshua 24² ᶠᐧ ¹⁴ ᶠᐧ); and on that assumption, the river
is certainly not the Tigris (Delitzsch), and almost certainly
not the Jordan (Wellhausen, Kuenen, Stade), but (in accordance
with prevailing tradition) _the_ נהר of the Old Testament, the
Euphrates, ‘beyond’ which lay Ḥarran, the city whence Abraham
set out. Hommel’s view (_The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as
illustrated by the Monuments_, 252 ff.) has no probability
(compare Driver 139²). The verb עבר, however, does not
necessarily mean to ‘cross’ (a stream); it sometimes means
simply to ‘traverse’ a region (Jeremiah 2⁶); and in this
sense Spiegelberg has recently (1907) revived an attractive
conjecture of Goldziher (_Mythos_, page 66), that עברים signifies
‘wanderers’――nomads (_Orientalische Litteraturzeitung_ x.
618 ff.).²

¹ After 1 Samuel it occurs only Deuteronomy 15¹², Jeremiah
34⁹ᐧ ¹⁴, Jonah 1⁹. But see the cogent criticisms of
Weinheimer in _Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft_, 1909, 275 ff., who propounds the view
that Hebrews and Israelites were distinct strata of the
population.

² In Egyptian texts from Thothmes III. to Ramses IV., the
word _‛Apuriu_ (_‛Apriu_) occurs as the name of a foreign
population in Egypt; and had been identified by Chabas with
the Hebrews of the Old Testament. The identification has
been generally discarded, on grounds which seemed cogent;
but has recently been revived by Hommel (_The Ancient Hebrew
Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments_, 259), and (with
arguments which seem very convincing) by Heyes (_Bibel und
Ägypten: Abraham und seine Nachkommen in Ägypten_, 1904, 146
ff.). In view of the striking resemblance to _Ḫabiri_, and
the new facts brought to light by the Tel-Amarna Tablets,
the hypothesis certainly deserves to be reconsidered
(compare Eerdmans, _l.c._ 52 ff., or _The Expositor_, 1909,
ii. 197 ff.).

=21.= _The father of all the sons of ‛Ēber_] The writer has apparently borrowed a genealogical list of the descendants of Eber which he was at a loss to connect with the name of Shem. Hence he avoids the direct assertion that Shem begat Eber, and bridges over the gap by the vague hint that Shem and Eber stand for the same ethnological abstraction.――_the elder brother of Yepheth_] The Hebrew can mean nothing else (_v.i._). The difficulty is to account for the selection of Japheth for comparison with Shem, the oldest member of the family. Unless the clause be a gloss, the most obvious inference is that the genealogy of Japheth had immediately preceded; whether because in the Table of Yahwist the sequence of age was broken (Budde 305 f.), or because Japheth was really counted the second son of Noah (Dillmann). The most satisfactory solution is undoubtedly that of Gunkel, who finds in the remark an indication that this Table followed the order: Canaan――Japheth――Shem (see page 188).――=24= is an interpolation (based on 11¹²⁻¹⁴) intended to harmonise Yahwist with Priestly-Code. It cannot be the continuation of ²¹ as it stands (since we have not been informed who Arpakšad was), and still less in the form suggested below. It is also obviously inconsistent with the plan of Priestly-Code’s Table, which deals with nations and not with individual genealogies (note also יָלַד instead of הוֹלִיד).

* * * * *

=21.= It is doubtful if the text is in order. First, it is
extremely likely that the introduction to the section on Shem
in. Yahwist would require modification to prevent contradiction
with verse ²² ᶠᐧ (Priestly-Code). Then, the omission of the
logical subject to יֻלַּד is suspicious. The Pual of this verb never
dispenses with the subject nor does the Hophal; the Niphal does
so once (Genesis 17¹⁷ [Priestly-Code]); but there the ellipsis
is explained by the emphasis which lies on the fact of birth.
Further, a הוּא is required as subject of the clause אבי וגו׳. The
impression is produced that originally עֵבֶר was expressly named
as the son of Shem, and that the words הוא אבי וגו׳ referred to him
(perhaps ולשם יֻלַּד את־ע֑בר הוא אבי וגו׳). Considering the importance of the
name, the tautology is not too harsh. It would then be hardly
possible to retain the clause אחי וגו׳; and to delete it as a gloss
(although it has been proposed by others: see _Oxford Hexateuch_)
I admit to be difficult, just because of the obscurity of the
expression.――גם הוא] compare 4²⁶.――אחי יפת הגדול] Vulgate correctly
_fratre Yahwist majore_. The Massoretic accentuation perhaps
favours the grammatically impossible rendering of LXX (ἀδελφῷ
Ἰαφεθ τοῦ μείζονος), Symmachus, al.; which implies that Japheth
was the oldest of Noah’s sons,――a notion extorted from the
chronology of 11¹⁰ coupled with 5³² 7¹¹ (see Rashi, Abraham
Ibn Ezra). It is equally inadmissible (with Abraham Ibn Ezra)
to take הגדול absolutely (= Japheth the great). See Budde 304
ff.――=24.= את־שלח] LXX prefers את־קינן וקינן ילד.

* * * * *

=25.= The two sons of Eber represent the Northern and Southern Semites respectively, corresponding roughly to Aramæans and Arabs: we may compare with Jastrow (_A Dictionary of the Bible_, v. 82 a) the customary division of Arabia into _Šām_ (Syria) and _Yemen_. The older branch, to which the Israelites belonged, is not traced in detail: we may assume that a Yahwistic genealogy (∥ to 11¹⁶ ᶠᶠᐧ [Priestly-Code]) existed, showing the descent of Abraham from Peleg; and from scattered notices (19³⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 22²⁰ ᶠᶠᐧ 25¹ ᶠᶠᐧ etc.) we can form an idea of the way in which the northern and central districts were peopled by that family of ‘Hebrews.’――On פֶּלֶג, see below.――_For in his days the earth was divided_ (נִפְלְגָה)] a popular etymology naturally suggested by the root, which in Hebrew (as in Aramaic, Arabic, etc.) expresses the idea of ‘division’ (compare the verb in Psalms 55¹⁰, Job 38²⁵). There is no very strong reason to suppose that the dispersion (פלוגתא, Targumᴶᵒⁿᵃᵗʰᵃⁿ etc.) of the Tower of Babel is referred to; it is possible that some other tradition regarding the distribution of nations is followed (_e.g._ _Jubilees_ viii. 8 ff.), or that the allusion is merely to the separation of the Yoḳṭanites from their northern kinsmen.

פֶּלֶג (Φαλεκ, Φαλεγ, Φαλεχ)] as a common noun means ‘watercourse’
or artificial canal (Assyrian _palgu_): Isaiah 30²⁵, Psalms
1³ 65¹⁰, Job 29⁶ etc. Hence it has been thought that the
name originally denoted some region intersected by irrigating
channels or canals, such as Babylonia itself. Of geographical
identifications there are several which are sufficiently
plausible: _Phalga_ in Mesopotamia, at the junction of the
Chaboras and the Euphrates (Knobel); _’el-Falǧ_, a district
in North-east Arabia near the head of the Persian Gulf
(Lagarde _Orientalia_ ii. 50); _’el-Aflāǧ_ South of Ǧebel
Tuwaiḳ in central Arabia (Hommel _Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts_, 222²).

יָקְטָן (Ἰεκταν)] otherwise unknown, is derived by Fleischer
(Goldziher _Der Mythos bei den Hebräern_, page 67) from √
_ḳaṭana_ = ‘be settled.’ The Arab genealogists identified him
with _Ḳaḥtān_, the legendary ancestor of a real tribe, who was
(or came to be) regarded as the founder of the Yemenite Arabs
(Margoliouth, _A Dictionary of the Bible_, ii. 743). On the
modern stock of ’el-Ḳaḥṭan, and its sinister reputation in the
more northerly parts of the Peninsula, see Doughty, _Travels in
Arabia Deserta_ i. 129, 229, 282, 343, 389, 418, ii. 39 ff., 437.

* * * * *

=25.= יֻלַּד] _The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch_, LXX ילדו;
but שְׁנֵי בָנִים is possibly accusative after passive, as 4¹⁸ etc.
(Gesenius-Kautzsch § 121 _a_, _b_)――האחד――אחיו] similarly 22²¹
(Yahwist).

* * * * *

=26‒30.= The sons of Yoḳṭan number 13, but in LXX (see on עובל below) only 12, which may be the original number. The few names that can be satisfactorily identified (_Sheleph, Ḥaẓarmaweth, Sheba, Ḥavilah_) point to South Arabia as the home of these tribes.

(1) אַלְמוֹדָד (Ἐλμωδαδ)] unknown. The אל is variously explained
as the Arabic article (but this is not Sabæan), as _’Ēl_ =
‘God, ’ and as _’āl_ = ‘family’; and מודד as a derivative of the
verb for ‘love’ (_wadda_), equivalent to Hebrew יָדִיד (Winckler
_Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_, vi. 169);
compare Glaser, _Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens_,
ii. 425; _A Dictionary of the Bible_, i. 67.

(2) שֶׁלֶף (Σαλεφ)] A Yemenite tribe or district named on Sabæan
inscriptions, and also by Arabic geographers: see Hommel
_Süd-arabische Chrestomathie_ 70; Osiander in _Zeitschrift
der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, xi. 153 ff.,
perhaps identical with the Salapeni of Roman writers. Cognate
place-names are said to be still common in South Arabia (Glaser).