The Table of Nations: The “Also Pe oples ” 1 Kenneth A. Mathews
Kenneth A. Mathews is Professor Introduction early as Jewish midrash: “Ham and a dog of Divinity at Beeson Divinity School, On November 7, 2000 Alabama’s citizens had sexual relations in the ark. Therefore Samford University. Dr. Mathews is also cast their votes for the forty-third Presi- Ham came forth dusky, and the dog, for adjunct professor of Old Testament at dent of the United States, electing George his part, has sexual relations in public” The Southern Baptist Theological Semi- W. Bush the first president of the new cen- (Gen. Rab. 36.5). F. A. Ross (1796-1883) nary. He has written numerous articles tury. That vote, however, was not the only argued in his Slavery Ordained of God and two books, including volume one significant ballot, and maybe not the most (1857) that there was an inherent correla- on Genesis in the New American Com- important, made by the people of Ala- tion between the geographical distribu- mentary series. He is now working on bama. Although only symbolic in action, tion of the races and their relative cultural volume two. the passage of Amendment 2 to the Ala- standing (Gen 10:1-32). By coupling his bama Constitution of 1901 repealed the interpretation of Genesis and A. H. obsolete ban of interracial marriage, sig- Guyot’s Earth and Man (1849), in which naling the end of another vestige of legal Guyot sought to explain a people’s physi- racial segregation that had marked every cal environment and their social and aspect of life in the deep South for three moral development, Ross contended that centuries.2 The law was not enforceable, the peoples south of the equator were since it contradicted the fourteenth ethnically inferior to those located in Asia amendment of the United States Consti- (Shem) and Europe (Japheth). The topog- tution, but the Alabama Constitution raphy itself conveys the superior features remained the last state constitution to of the Europeans: “That Europe, indented have this prohibition on the books. by the sea on every side, with its varied During the era of racial slavery, apolo- scenery, and climate, and Northern influ- gists for the status quo often appealed to ences makes the varied intellect, the ver- the Bible, including Genesis, as their satile power and life and action, of the religious and cultural authority. Unfortu- masterman of the world.”3 nately, they misunderstand Genesis 10:1- Racial segregationists during the civil 32, popularly known as the “Table of rights movement of the twentieth century Nations.” Also, the prelude to the Table often appealed to Acts 17:26, which relies of Nations (9:20-29), describing Noah’s on the Table of Nations, when asserting curse against his grandson Canaan and the permanent separation of the races: his blessing on Shem, became a perverted “From one man he [God] made every commentary on the inferior status of the nation of men, that they should inhabit black African peoples, “the lowest of the whole earth; and he determined the slaves shall he [Canaan] be” (9:25), and times set for them and the exact places their descendants. That the curse meant where they should live.” Christian inter- Ham’s descendants were inferior as a race preters who advocated segregation and forever stigmatized by dark skin maintained that the true unity that all color was an interpretation known as Christians have is their spiritual oneness 42 in Christ, but racial amalgamation con- history, traditions, and culture, such as tradicted the ordinance of God that familial descent, language, and religious established the separation of the races.4 and social customs. “People” (‘am) is the By neglecting this creation ordinance, common term used by God in referring racial integration opposed the wisdom of to the Israelites; with the possessive forms Providence. (e.g., ‘ammi, “my people”) the expression Although the vast majority of inter- captures the personal, relational aspect of preters today reject bizarre racial interpre- Yahweh and Israel, the covenant commu- tations of passages (e.g., Gen 4:11; 9:25; nity (e.g., Exod 3:7).6 W. von Sodom com- 10:1-32), occasionally a hint emerges that ments that Israel alone in the ancient Near in biblical times there were pure racial East developed a word for itself that entities, especially the Israelites. As the conveyed “unequivocally” that it was a argument goes, the Jews, by maintaining people.7 “Israel” understood itself as a a pure race, preserved a pure religion. In people identified and bound by their this essay we will show that ancient devotion to God, not foremostly by terri- peoples were no more pure in race than tory, language, or even common deriva- modern communities and that race as tion. They primarily perceived a “nation” commonly defined today was not of spe- (goy) as a political term, describing a geo- cial interest to ancient peoples, nor to the political state in a specific locale whose Hebrews. Also, we will examine why the citizenship consists of interconnected Bible prohibits some kinds of integration communities.8 between the Hebrews and outsiders, such Peoples of the ancient Near East per- as intermarriage. Finally, we will com- ceived family derivation, shared history, ment on the inclusiveness of God’s traditions, and customs as the primary redemptive plan for the ages as mani- means of distinguishing ethnic groups. fested by Israel and the church. “Race” as we think of it was not impor- tant for ancient peoples, including the The Table of Nations and Israel Hebrews, and rarely appears in ancient Since some segregationists believed the texts or the Bible (e.g., Jer 13:23). Typically, division of the nations in chs. 10-11 the Hebrews, like the peoples of the showed that God intended for the races ancient Near East, identified foreigners in to remain separate, we will look at the terms of their language, locale, religion, character of the Table of Nations. Before or customs (e.g., Num 21:29; Isa 33:19; doing so, we will comment on the bewil- Amos 1:5). dering terms that contemporary discourse employs when discussing ethnic groups.5 The Table of Nations The terms “race” and “ethnic” are First, the Table of Nations employs an often used synonymously today, but each eclectic standard for establishing the holds a different nuance. In the case of relationships it describes, providing var- “race” we are speaking of inherited physi- ied sorts of information, by listing “clans,” cal traits that characterize peoples, such languages,” “territories,” and “nations” as cranial shape, facial features, and skin (10:5, 20, 31, 32; cf. v. 18).9 Individuals’ color. “Ethnic” (ethnos) or “people group” names (e.g., Nimrod [10:8], Peleg [10:25]), identifies an affiliated people who share territorial entities (e.g., Canaan, Mizraim, 43 10:6), and tribes and nations (e.g., Kittim erary effect of this arrangement implies [10:4], Jebusites [10:16]) appear. “Sidon that the chosen Shemite lineage (11:10-26), the firstborn,” for example, is ambiguous, resulting in the family of Abraham (11:26), perhaps referring to a person or to the is the response of divine grace to the Phoenician city by the Sea (10:15,19). The Tower of Babel’s tumult. By creating a expressions “father of” (yalad, e.g., 10:8, nation with Abraham, Yahweh provided 13, 15) and “sons of” (bene, e.g., 10:1,2) are the means for blessing the nations (12:3b; familial terms that may be used meta- 18:18; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). phorically to signify peoples or places Third, the collection of names is affiliated by political and economic ties ethnogeographic in emphasis,10 establish- (cf. 1 Chr 2:51, “Salma the father of ing the broad geographical domains of Bethlehem”). An example of a family term the groups that make up each branch. The commonly substituted for a political tie Japhethites, peoples who were most is “daughters” (benot) which describes remote to Israel’s history, were primarily villages that encompassed and depended located in Asia Minor and Europe. Egypt, on an urban center (NIV’s “surrounding Mesopotamian locations, and parts of settlements,” Num 21:25; Josh 15:45; 1 Chr Arabia were Hamitic descendants, and 2:23; Neh 11:25). the Shemites included parts of Meso- Second, the Table of Nations exhibits a potamia and Arabia, and the region of form of genealogy popular in Genesis, Syria. The Hamite and Shemite peoples, known as “branched” or “segmented” who receive more attention in the Table, (e.g., Cainites, 4:17-24). The branched had frequent contact with the Israelites in genealogical pattern includes the names their history. From the perspective of the of more than one descendant for each gen- Israelites emerging from the wilderness, eration cited. The Table arranges the this blueprint of the surrounding popu- names into three sections according to the lations prepared them for their future role number of Noah’s sons (9:18-19): Japheth as a burgeoning member of the commu- (vv. 2-5), Ham (vv. 6-20), and Shem (vv. nity of peoples. 21-31). The “linear” type of genealogy Fourth, the seventy names listed in the presents only one name per generation, Table are representative of all nations, not e.g., the Sethites (5:1-32) and the Shemites a comprehensive list (cf. 10:5, “From these (11:10-26). [named Japhethites] the maritime peoples In the case of Shem, both forms of spread out”). The count of seventy as a genealogy occur, providing an illustration multiple of seven and ten indicates of each type (10:21-31; 11:10-26). The completeness, suggesting that the list former occasion is branched in accord symbolized all nations. Although Israel’s with the practice in Genesis of listing the ancestor “Eber” appears in the list (10:21; non-elect offspring, e.g., the sons of Joktan 11:14-17), the absence of Israel shows that (10:26-30). The second Shemite genealogy the biblical author assumed its existence is linear, corresponding to Genesis’ fea- and penned the Table from the standpoint ture of identifying the chosen lineage by of Israel (cf. 46:27; Deut 32:8). this pattern, e.g., Peleg (11:16). The two Fifth, the chief purpose of the Table of Shemite genealogies encompass the Nations was to explain in theological Tower of Babel account (11:1-9). The lit- terms the common origin of the nations, 44 all of whom were derived from Noah’s dispute in the history of interpretation. three sons (9:18-19; 10:1). Noah in effect The answer probably lies in the typical was the “new Adam” (cf. 9:20), whose Hebrew mindset toward family solidar- sons received creation’s promissory bless- ity, which assumes the son’s conformity ing anew (1:28) as humanity entered into to his father’s conduct (e.g., Exod 20:5-6). the restored creation: “Then God blessed This expectation held true, for the licen- Noah and his sons, saying to them, ‘Be tious behavior of the Hamitic descendants fruitful and increase in number and fill of Canaan stamped their culture as one the earth’” (9:1; cf. 9:7). God did not aban- of the most deviant (e.g., Lev 18:24-30; don his creation purposes despite human 20:22-24; Deut 12:31; 18:9-12; 20:18). sin and graciously continued his provi- Sixth, as the preamble to the Table of sion for all humanity by establishing a Nations, the Noahic curse and blessing universal covenant (9:1-17). As in the case (9:20-27) introduced a moral factor, a theo- of the first Adam (3:6-7, 10-11), the new logical reading of the Table that provided Adam trespassed by misusing the fruit of Israel a moral compass when it entered the land (drunkenness) and experienced the land of Canaan. Casting the Table of the shame of nakedness, resulting in strife Nations as a theological commentary did among his descendants (9:20-27). Yet, not vitiate the historical reliability of the Noah’s moral descent served only as Table’s presentation that exhibits real, the backdrop to the author’s greater complex interconnections among the interest, recounting the curse and bless- nations.11 By referring to this moral ing that Noah uttered in response to factor, we do not mean that the author his sons’ contradictory behaviors. Ham believed that the nations had inherent injured his father’s honor and impugned moral traits. We do not find in the his parental authority by publicly ridicul- Pentateuch, for example, any affirmation ing Noah’s nakedness (9:22). Public of the inherent virtue of Israel versus “also nakedness was an especially shameful peoples.” If anything, Deuteronomy’s the- condition for a person in ancient cultures ology of election demotes the nation, (cf. 2 Sam 10:4; Hab 2:15). Such an affront making it clear that one’s behavior was against one’s parent ultimately trans- not the basis for Yahweh’s favor (Deut 7:1, gressed the authority of Yahweh who 6-9, 17; 9:1, 4-5; 11:23). When Israel fol- bestowed a derived authority to parents, lowed the immoral conduct of their for the premise that underlies the first neighbors, they would meet the same table of the Ten Words was the unrivaled ends as their Canaanite predecessors (e.g., supremacy of Yahweh (Exod 20:12; Deut Deut 8:20; 18:9-12; 28:15, 37; cf. Lev 18:28). 5:16; cf. Gen 49:3-4; Deut 21:18-21). In con- The measure of Israel’s people was their trast to Ham’s reaction, his brothers spiritual condition before God (e.g., Deut Shem and Japheth took elaborate steps 10:16; 30:6, 11-14). Whenever the Hebrews to restore their father’s honor without wrongly considered themselves insulated offense (9:23). Noah based his curse and from moral judgment by virtue of their blessing on the conduct of his three sons status, Yahweh roundly condemned the toward his distinct authority. Precisely notion (e.g., Jer 7:8-17; Mal 2:9), for he did why the curse was directed against Ham’s not show partiality based on ethnicity nor son Canaan instead of Ham is a recurring did he tolerate partiality (e.g., Deut 10:17): 45 “‘Are not you Israelites the same to me Nations as the ancestor to many Semitic as the Cushites?’ declares the LORD” speaking peoples (10:21,25), including (Amos 9:7). Abraham (11:16; 1 Chr 1:18-19). The To conclude that the purpose of the precise etymological history of the term Table was to prove the racial superiority “Hebrew” (‘ibri) is uncertain. If it is not of the Shemite peoples over the Hamite simply a word play on the name Eber, sadly misconstrues the intention of the making Abraham an “Eberite,” it may passage. That the archenemies of Israel, have been originally related to the word such as Egypt, Assyria, and Canaan, group ‘—b—r, meaning “to cross over appear in the Table evidences their inclu- (from the other side),” from which “Eber” sion in the divine blessing of the Noahic (‘eber) too is possibly derived (cf. ‘eber, covenant (9:1, 17). Within the confines of “the other side,” e.g., Josh 24:3). The LXX the Table itself, we have discovered that reflects this interpretation of the name in there is no allusion to Israel’s superiority its translation of “Abram the Hebrew” over the “also peoples.” The Babel inci- (14:13): Abram t¯o perat¯e, “Abram the one dent that preceded the dissemination of who crossed over,” alluding to the migra- the nations (11:1-9) impacted all nations tion of the patriarchs.12 who emerged from the plain of Shinar. By The term “Hebrew” in the Old Testa- means of the creation of a new people ment usually, if not always (possible (Abraham), God would secure salvation exceptions, cf. Exod 21:2-11; 1 Sam 13:3, for all of the “also peoples” (12:3b; 22:18; 6-7; 14:21; 29:3), refers to an ethnic group, 28:14; cf. Gal 3:8). one that can be differentiated from oth- ers by affiliation (e.g., 43:32; Exod 1:15-16, “Abraham the Hebrew” 19; 2:11). The word is typically used by Although common usage today non-Israelites, such as the Egyptians (e.g., equates the term “Hebrew” with “Jew” 39:14, 17; Exod 1:16, 19; 2:6) and the Phi- (cf. Acts 6:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5), the use listines (e.g., 1 Sam 4:6, 9; 14:11), naming of the term in the Old Testament is com- members of the pre-Israelite family of plex. We have observed that according to Abraham or members of the nation of the patriarchal promises Abraham was Israel. On some occasions, an Israelite the nexus of the insiders, the “chosen employed the term in reference to fellow people,” and the outsiders, the “also Hebrews (Exod 2:7, 13), and Joseph made peoples.” His genealogy shows that he use of it when identifying his homeland was the offspring of Mesopotamian par- (e.g., “the land of the Hebrews,” 40:15). entage, whom we may identify anachron- Jonah is the only person in the Old Testa- istically for our purposes as Gentile ment who identified himself directly as a (non-Hebrew), and he was the father of a “Hebrew” (1:9), though he did so in con- new people, the Hebrews. Abraham is the versation with non-Israelites and prima- first person identified as a “Hebrew” rily in terms of Israel’s religion (“and I (‘ibri) in Scripture (Gen 14:13), here by the worship Yahweh,” 1:9). This association narrator, who distinguishes him from his of the Hebrews with Yahweh is reminis- ally, “Mamre the Amorite.” “Eber” (‘eber), cent of the appellative for Yahweh in whose name may be the source for the Exodus who is frequently identified as term “Hebrew,” appears in the Table of “the God of the Hebrews” (Exod 3:18; 46 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3). “Hebrew” as a lan- term was often used in a derisive sense. guage was later equated with “Judahite,” A modern example of this is the term the language of Jerusalem’s residents (2 “minority,” which has become in some Kgs 18:26; 2 Chr 32:18; Isa 36:11, 13). In circles a pejorative expression, designating the eschatological “day of the LORD,” the those who are deemed socially inferior. Egyptians will evidence their loyalty to When we consider that the incursion Yahweh by adopting the “language of of the Israelites in Canaan took place gen- Canaan” (Isa 19:18), i.e., Hebrew (or erally during the same era, the similarity Canaanite dialect). The apostle Paul, too, of the words “Hebrew” (‘ibri) and Habiru, used “Hebrew” as an ethnic or language and the disruption in Canaan that the designation (2 Cor 11:22; Phil 3:5; cf. Acts Israelites achieved, it is tempting to 6:1). equate them. There are, however, too Still, “Hebrew” (‘ibri) may have been many differences to posit that “Hebrew” a social designation at times in the Bible, referred to social status alone, especially not solely an ethnic one. Some biblical since “Hebrew” is primarily an ethnic passages imply a social use of the term designation for Israelite. E. Merrill posits “Hebrews,” where the referents appear to that the similarities between the two be differentiated from the Israelites (e.g., possibly led to some confusion by non- 1 Sam 13:3, 6-7; 14:21; 29:3). Also, the pre- Israelites, such as the Philistines and ponderance of the term “Hebrew” occurs Egyptians. The behavior of some Israel- in those passages in Genesis 39-50 and ite figures, especially David, who led Exodus 1-15 where the pre-Israelites are a mercenary band, contributed to this slaves (cf. Exod 21:2-11).13 N. Na’aman impression. Also, the evidence from the has suggested that the biblical authors’ book of Samuel shows that the Philistines use of “Hebrew” shows that the word referred to the “Hebrews” in a demean- underwent a change in meaning from a ing way. Merrill adds that the Habiru may social function to primarily an ethnic well have been assimilated into the new term.14 The basis for this explanation Israelite presence in Canaan as the resides in the identification of the similar- Hebrews controlled much of the central sounding word Habiru/Apiru, a term highlands.15 The earlier uses of “Hebrew” indicating social status. The Habiru are for Abraham and Joseph reflect some of mentioned in many texts from the second the same social features, such as their millennium BC that are widely distrib- alien status. Nevertheless, it must be uted among the chief urban centers of admitted that “Hebrew” had an ethnic Mesopotamia, Syria, Canaan, and Egypt. meaning on those same occasions. They were migrants who for varied In sum, “Hebrew” was primarily an reasons, such as poverty and war, had ethnic designation, though it occasionally become displaced from their birthplace, may have had social implications. traveled to a new setting, and eventually assimilated in their new country or cir- Israel and the “Also Peoples” cumstances. The Habiru became resource- The cumulative evidence from the ful as mercenary soldiers. For the most Bible, ancient texts, and archaeological part, the Habiru were troublemakers for recoveries produce a surprising picture of local rulers, and as a consequence the the place the Hebrews occupied in their 47 world. The precise ethnic identity of Canaanites). Israel was muddled by the manifold Such complicated connections make connections the people had with their the idea of “races” irrelevant from the neighbors. F. Crüsemann shows how the perspective of Genesis’ genealogies. Tex- genealogies in Genesis, when taken in tual evidence from the ancient Near East their entirety, provide for a system and the Bible indicate that people groups unknown in any other genealogy attested commonly commingled. According to K. among ancient or modern peoples.16 The Kamp and N. Yoffee, the traditional system includes interdependencies criteria of shared language, territory, and among individuals and whole ethnic ecological acculturation used by anthro- groups, even the whole of the human pologists for differentiating ethnic groups, family. Indeed the term “human family” are not as reliable as once assumed, shows the implication of the Genesis making it difficult to discern confidently genealogies—all individuals regardless ethnic identities on the basis of material of their ethnic differences remain invio- remains and textual data.17 Ethnoarch- lably interconnected as one united fam- aeological studies conclude that in a ily. From the perspective of the Genesis complex society like those of the urban genealogies, all are ultimately kin by centers in the ancient Near East, “cultural virtue of one common parent, whether he plurality” dominated and a “pure cul- is Adam or Noah. ture” did not exist. Also, Crüsemann observes that the Though differences in language were genealogies of Genesis possess a complex recognized (e.g., Neh 13:24; Est 1:22), differentiation within groups. Although ancient societies themselves did not per- differentiation is paramount in the patri- ceive language as the primary indicator archal narratives (e.g., Israel/Esau), of national identity. D. Block, in his analy- important differentiation also occurs in sis of language as a kinship factor in the Table of Nations. We have observed designating ethnic groups, found that already that an important divergence language by itself could not serve as a cer- takes place between the sibling lines of tain pointer toward ethnic divergence.18 Joktan and Peleg, both offspring of Eber Genesis 31:45-49 exhibits different (10:25). Although both are Shemites and languages spoken by Laban (Aramaic) Eberites, the Joktanites are not in the and Jacob (Hebrew), although they ancestral line leading directly to the birth descended from brothers (Abraham, of Abraham. Yet, on account of the inter- Nahor) who only two generations earlier connectedness provided by the genealogi- had migrated into the Paddan Aram cal system of the Table, the Joktanites and region (11:26-32; 22:23; 24:15; 28:2, 5). Abrahamites also had an ancestral link- Geography more than kinship in this case age. When we consider the peoples that dictated the language adopted by each arose from the differentiation within the branch of the family. The modern term Terah clan and the Abraham family, we “Semitic” cannot refer to ethnicity but discover a far-reaching range of entangle- only to the languages of the Semitic- ments that produced some peoples speaking peoples.19 The Elamites who closely related to Israel (e.g., Esau/Edom) were not a Semitic-speaking people were and others remotely related (e.g., descended from Shem (10:22). The lan- 48 guage of Hebrew in the Semitic constella- Thus while language, cultural practices, tion of tongues corresponds closely to the religion, and politics are factors in differ- language of their archrivals, the Canaanites. entiation, no one element is the con- Also, the material cultures that the trolling constituent that clarifies the Canaanites and Hebrews produced in the complexities of ancient ethnic diver- Middle to Late Bronze Ages were not sub- gences. stantively different. The classic problem faced by archaeologists when reconstruct- The Constitution of Israel ing the periods of the patriarchs and As for the identity of the Israelites who Israel’s entry into Canaan is discerning a emerged from Egypt, they included a differentiation in the material culture of “mixed multitude” (‘ereb rab, Exod the Hebrews from the indigenous 12:38,48; cf. Neh 13:3; Jer 25:24), indicat- Canaanites. D. Edelman’s study of the ing a mixed number of people groups Palestinian evidence concludes, “Modern who were slaves alongside the Hebrews ethnographic studies have indicated the in Egypt (Num 11:14). Throughout Israel’s complexity of the formation and main- long history there was a mingling of tenance of ethnic identification and diverse ethnic groups.22 We already noted inability to predict markers on the basis that the ancestors of Israel included of practices of various living groups or Aramean kinship, e.g., “my father was cultures.”20 Solely on the basis of remains, a wandering Aramean” (Deut 26:5). apart from the biblical record, one could Although the brothers Abram and Nahor conclude that “[t]he evidence from had the same father, the lineage of Nahor language, costume, coiffure, and material who resided at Haran in Paddan Aram remains suggest that the early Israelites was called “Aramean,” not Hebrew, due were a rural subset of Canaanite culture to location or language. The biblical nar- and largely indistinguishable from rator identified Bethuel, the son of Nahor, Tranjordanian rural cultures as well.”21 and Laban his son as “Arameans” (25:20; Yet, despite these shared features of lan- 28:5); this Aramean stock of the Terah clan guage and material culture, Canaanites provided the wives for the patriarchs and Hebrews represented separate lines, Isaac (Rebekah) and his son Jacob (Leah, according to the Table of Nations. Rachel) who bore the progenitors of the On the other hand, we may look at the twelve tribes of national Israel. example of the Joktanites and Pelegites Yet, the Bible indicates that individu- who, as Shemites, derived from the com- als and people groups who became mem- mon ancestor Eber (10:25). Peleg’s branch bers of the Israelite community could produced the Terah clan (11:14-17), retain an ethnic identity (e.g., Beerothites, whereas the Joktan line produced peoples 2 Sam 4:2-3). The Bible’s historians noted primarily occupying the southern penin- this as an important feature when they sula of Arabia (10:26-20). Thus, the Table referenced “outsiders” who had become of Nations presents people groups, such “insiders.” They viewed them as mem- as the Joktanites, who were distant from bers of Israel but not always fully assimi- the Hebrews in almost every way, yet lated, since their ethnic roots were by their lineal connection were closer in remembered. Full assimilation presum- descent to Israelites than the Canaanites. ably occurred in later generations (e.g., 49 Kenites, Judg 1:16), though in some cases dencies among groups. Moreover, after many generations later (e.g., Ammonites, the demise of the state and the chief Moabites, Deut 23:3; Gibeonites, Josh 9:27; religious institution, the temple, and the 2 Sam 21:2). Rahab, the Jericho prostitute displacement of the nuclear populace, this and her family (Josh 6:25; cf. Heb 11:31; people maintained their distinctive iden- James 2:25), and “Ruth the Moabitess,” tity and heritage. F. Frick answers this who professed her faith in Naomi’s God question not as a theologian, but as a (Ruth 1:16-17), illustrate ethnic incorpo- social scientist of ancient Israel, when he ration of individuals. The Calebites, the says, “The mechanism that maintained descendants of the celebrated Caleb who social solidarity and law and order in the had urged Israel to enter the land (Num village and inter-village level, and made 13:30), were ethnically Kenizzites possible multi-community groupings (