‘ f- é M — M T S JASTROW THE H AMITES AND SE I E . THE H AMIT ES AND SEMIT ES IN THE T ENT H CH AP T ER OF GENESIS. B A W R ! M ORRIS J ST RO , J . ( Read April 4, The ro th chapter of Genesis is generally admitted to be one of the most remarkable but also one of the most puzzlin g documents of of antiquity . Scholars have been engaged ever since the days ’ the Talmud and of Eusebius in attempts to identify the n ations named in the chapter and in endeavors to determine the point of view from which the division of n ations has been made and to ascertain the character of the underlying ethnological and e th no if e graphical scheme , there be one in the chapt r . Modern research , has aided to a certain extent by ancient tradition , succeeded in t f r f 2 iden i ying a large numbe o the nations enumerated , but the attempts to discover any system in the groupin g ofthe nations have failed chiefly because of the erroneous assumption that an ancient document could give evidence either of scien tific accuracy or of a ethnological fi n ess e . An adequate conception of what re lly con stituted a nation lay beyond the mental horizon of the an cient ’ G e s i n r n ! . ofs x t or a t a . F a parti l bibliography se e D illm an n s e n s (E gl . s i h ed Ed n ur . 2 For th e T a m ud a v ws an d n t fi at n s se e i b gh , p 3 5 . l ic l ie ide i c io ' ’ — N u au r L a Ge o ra nze d a l a a . 2 1 2 a T nm P r s . e b e , g p ( i , pp 4 4 9 3 Se e for recen t ex position s th e commentari es of Gunkel Holz inger Strack and D ri ve r ( 1 903) to the chapter in question ; also S r d r Cu n e i orm In s cr n d fi e es ta men t L n n a t on s a t ld T Vol . ch e , f ip i O ( o do , ' ' ’ ' ' 6 1 — 0 an a Sk z z e ae r o e u n a Ges c/ ue nte A a bze n s . 1 d s r i Ge r nz r i , pp 3 ; Gl e , g ap , ii ’ r i n a s . 26 to 28 T h e a t r in A fr d r m as D as A lt e (Be l , ch p . ch p e l e Je e i ’ — Tes ta m e n t in: L ze nte des Alte n Or ie n ts L z . 1 1 0 is to ( eip ig, pp 4 5 7 , be especially recommen ded as the latest summary of accepted iden tifications and aus of its va ua s u m ntar stat m n ts an d su st n s t ward h e bec e l ble pple e y e e , gge io o t s ut n of th e man r ms in th e l oth a t r of n s s . A s r us f t ol io y p oble ch p e Ge e i e io de ec , ’ w v r of e re mias t atm n of h h a r is his fa r to ak suffi ho e e , I re e t t e c pte ilu e t e ciently nt a u n t its m s t ara t r ns st n as it d s of two st n t u i o cco co po i e ch c e , co i i g, oe , di i c doc m nts to t r w t m an ss s and n s rt ns T hus w at s a s a ut t e ge he i h y glo e i e io . , h he y bo h e ! s u s d Ara an r n ofN mr 1 8 fa s to the r und ifv rs s - 1 ppo e bi o igi i od (p. 5 ) ll g o e e 8 2 are recogn iz ed as an addition that stands in n o connection with verse 7 ; nor ’ d s r m as n a w lk r a 1 oe Je e i ge er l vie of th e Va e t fe l as a u n it ( p . 4 5 ) commend ts fin th e i t ofth e r t a ana s s ofth e a t i el l gh c i ic l ly i ch p er. J AST ROW— TH E H AMITES AND SEMITES f o . f world , certainly the ancient Orient Apart rom a certain instinct— to speak in de finite ly— which correctly led a people to predicate its own closer or remoter relationship to others , reliance s of was placed on more or le s uncertain traditions , and the value such tradition “(as still further diminished by the subjective factors— a ’ s s — people likes and dislikes , its experiences and ambition that ' ' e n te red ats elements into its formation ; and when we pass beyond i of the immed ate political environment an ancient people , we must be prepared for a nebulousness of views that is almost inconce iv able to a modern mind and for i nconsistencies that are as bewil . of dering as they are numerous In view this , it is evident that the critical analysis of the chapter to which modern scholarship has devoted itselfwith marked success is insuffi cient for a solution of the problems involved unle ss it also takes into account the uncriti cal attitude of the ancient world toward ethnological and geo graphical data . The critical analysis of the 1 0th chapter of Genesis has reached t e a stage that may, with reasonable cer ainty , be regarded as d finite 1 and as having attained its utmost limits . O f the two documents combined to form the present Volkertafel— to use the convenient — f of dis German term the one that orms part the Priestly Code , in uishe d f f e t g by critics as P, orms the chie elem nt , as is the case 2 r of throughout the fi st eleven chapters Genesis , while the other, off designated as J , has only been drawn upon to the extent urnish m ing supplementary data, though at ti es those supplementary data rn ishe s exceed in length the account in P , and , occasionally, q i of A f . material , l ke the story Cain and bel , not ound in P at all In h as of ro h t e c e the t chapter, while I is actually longer than P, yet the latter document represents a far closer approach to a syste as m m matic arrangement , where J , arked by any glosses, is extracted in so arbitrary a fashion in order to supplement P that it is difi cult to obtain an accurate view of the system followed by the “ J in f document its original orm . ff When the two documents are placed side by side , the di erences between them will become clear . 1 om os o de ex e s d cd 1 8 We lhause n C iti n s teu . l H a n . , p (3 , 99, pp 4 ’ 2 - - s Ur ese irnte s 6 6 and a s . 2 1 1 u n . B dde g . pp 4 99 o" pp. 4 4 4 5 . l o pp 5 53 , where th e Jahwistic source in th e fi rst eleven chapte rs of Gen esis is put t r toge he . — T JASTROW THE H A MITES AND SEMI ES . O J. 1 0 t o T s are th e n rat n of 1 8 T he s ns f N a t at w nt , ( ) he e ge e io s 9 , ( ) o o o h h e the s ns of N a S m am an d f rt of the ark w r Sh m Ham and o o h ; he , H o h e e e , a t 2 Th e so ns f a t ss : a a H a m is e a t/zer J phe h . ( o Japheth J phe h (glo n th f ‘ w r m r o Mada avan T u o Ca n aa n . 1 T s t r w r th e e e Go e , g, i, J , f ) ( 9) he e h ee e e bal M s T s ns and ras . Th of N a an d of t m was th e , e hech i ( 3 ) e o o h ; he sons of m r w r As naz Ri w art v rs r ad 1 0 1 b Go e e e hke , p hole e h o e p e ( , at and T arma Th e ns of to t m sons w r b rn aft r th e h h og h .