---

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 9^18a (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 f. 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 (^{21. 25 ff.}). 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 Testament³, 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.

---

8. נִמְרֹד (Νεβρωδ)] The Hebrew naturally connects the name with the √ מרד = ‘rebel’ (Targum^Jonathan, 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 Testament³, 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 Testament³, 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 Orients², 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 Testament³, 581²; and on the late Jewish and Mohammedan legends generally, Seligsohn, Jewish Encyclopædia, ix. 309 ff.

---

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 Testament³, 422², 423⁸; Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten Orients², 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 14^1. 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 Testament³, 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 Testament³, 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 Orients², 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 Testament², 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 Testament³, 75⁴; Gunkel² 78; compare Johns, Encyclopædia Biblica, 3420). The fabulous dimensions given by Diodorus (ii. 3; compare Jonah 3^3 f.) 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 Orients², 273).¹

---

11. יָצָא אַשּׁוּר] ‘he went out to Asshur’ (so Targum^Jonathan, Calvin, and all moderns). The rendering ‘Asshur went out’ (LXX, Vulgate, Peshiṭtå, Targum^Onkelos, 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 9^18 f. 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 Orients², 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.

(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 44^1. 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 30^14. 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 Monuments⁶, 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 Orients², 275.¹

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 Testaments² 15) and others remove ^16–18a as a gloss: because (a) the boundaries laid down in ¹⁹ are exceeded in ^17. 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 ^18b. 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 27^46b 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 15^19–21 23³. 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 [LXX^Lucian], 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 [LXX^{B, al.}] 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 5^6–9 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 21^13 ff., 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 2^9 f.), 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 Testament³, 178 ff.; Meyer Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, i. 122 ff.; Wellhausen Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments² 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 Alterthums², 1. ii. § 396.

(3) הַגִּרְגָּשִׁי] 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, 622_4 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 27^8. 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 Testament², 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 Testament², 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 (Targum^Jonathan, 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 Testaments² 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 ^17. 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 11^4. 8. 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 Testament³, 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 24^{2 f. 14 f.}); 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

---

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 11^12–14) 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 f. (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 11^16 ff. [Priestly-Code]) existed, showing the descent of Abraham from Peleg; and from scattered notices (19^30 ff. 22^20 ff. 25^1 ff. 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, Targum^Jonathan 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).

(3) חֲצַרְמָוֶת (Ἁσαρμωθ)] The modern province of Ḥaḍramaut, on the South coast, East of Yemen. The name appears in Sabæan inscriptions of 5th and 6th centuries A.D., and is slightly disguised in the Χατραμωτῖται of Strabo (XVI. iv. 2), the Chatramotitæ of Pliny, vi. 154 (Atramitæ, vi. 155, xii. 52?).

(4) יֶרַח (Ἰαραδ)] uncertain. The attempts at identification proceed on the appellative sense of the word (= ‘moon’), but are devoid of plausibility (see Dillmann).

(5) הֲדוֹרָם (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch אדורם, LXX Ὁδορρα)] likewise unknown. A place called Dauram close to Ṣan‛a has been suggested: the name is found in Sabæan (Glaser, 426, 435).

(6) אוּזָל (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch איזל, LXX Αἰζηλ)] mentioned by Ezekiel (27¹⁹: read מֵאוּזָל) as a place whence iron and spices were procured. It is commonly taken to be the same as ’Azāl, which Arabic tradition declares to be the old name of Ṣan’a, now the capital of Yemen. Glaser (310, 427, 434, etc.) disputes the tradition, and locates ’Ûzāl in the neighbourhood of Medina.¹

(7) דִּקְלָה (Δεκλα)] Probably the Arabic and Aramaic word (daḳal, דקלא, (‡ Syriac word)) for ‘date-palm,’ and therefore the name of some noted palm-bearing oasis of Arabia. Glaser (Mittheilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft, 1897, 438) and Hommel (Aufsätze und Abhandlungen arabistisch-semitologischen Inhalts, 282 f.) identify it with the Φοινικων of Procopius, and the modern Ǧōf es-Sirhān, 30° North latitude (as far North as the head of the Red Sea).

(8) עוֹבָל (The Samaritan Recension of the Pentateuch and 1 Chronicles 1²² עֵיבָל, LXX^Lucian Γαιβαλ)] supposed to be the word ‛Abil, a frequent geographical name in Yemen (Glaser, 427). The name is omitted by many MSS of LXX, also by LXXᴮ in 1 Chronicles 1²² (see Nestle, Marginalien und Materialien, 10), where some Hebrew MSS and Peshiṭtå have עובל.

(9) אֲבִימָאֵל (Ἀβιμεηλ)] apparently a tribal name (= ‘father is God’), of genuine Sabæan formation (compare אבמעתֿתר, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, xxxvii. 18), not hitherto identified.

(10) שְׁבָא] see on verse ⁷ (page 203). The general connexion suggests that the Sabæans are already established in Yemen; although, if ’Ûzāl be as far North as Medina, the inference is perhaps not quite certain.

(11) אוֹפִר (Οὐφειρ)] known to the Israelites as a gold-producing country (Isaiah 13¹², Psalms 45¹⁰, Job 22²⁴ 28¹⁶, 1 Chronicles 29⁴ [Sirach 7¹⁸]), visited by the ships of Solomon and Hiram, which brought home not only gold and silver and precious stones, but almug-wood, ivory, apes and (?) peacocks (1 Kings 9²⁸ 10^11. 22; compare 22⁴⁹). Whether this familiarity with the name implies a clear notion of its geographical position may be questioned; but it can hardly be doubted that the author of the Yahwistic Table believed it to be in Arabia; and although no name at all resembling Ophir has as yet been discovered in Arabia, that remains the most probable view (see Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens, ii. 357–83). Of other identifications the most important are: Abhira in India, East of the mouths of the Indus (Lassen); (2) the Sofala coast (opposite Madagascar), behind which remains of extensive gold-diggings were discovered around Zimbabwe in 1871: the ruins, however, have now been proved to be of native African origin, and not older than the 14th or 15th century A.D. (see D. Randall-Maciver, Mediæval Rhodesia [1906]); (3) Apir (originally Hapir), an old name for the ruling race in Elam, and for the coast of the Persian Gulf around Bushire (see Hommel The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated by the Monuments, 236⁴; Hüsing, Orientalische Litteraturzeitung, vi. 367 ff.; Jensen Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, l. 246). If we could suppose the name transferred to the opposite (Arabian) coast of the gulf, this hypothesis would satisfy the condition required by this passage, and would agree in particular with Glaser’s localisation. For a discussion of the various theories, see the excellent summary by Cheyne in Encyclopædia Biblica, iii. 3513 ff.; Price, A Dictionary of the Bible, iii. 626 ff.; and Driver The Book of Genesis with Introduction and Notes² XXVI. f., 131.

(12) חֲוִילָה] see page 202.

(13) יוֹבָב (Ἰωβαβ)] unknown. Halevy and Glaser (ii. 303) compare the Sabæan name Yuhaibab.

The limits (probably from North to South) of the Yoḳṭanite territory are specified in verse ³⁰; but a satisfactory explanation is impossible owing to the uncertainty of the three names mentioned in it (Dillmann).—מֵשָׁא (Μασσηε) has been supposed to be Mesene ((‡ Syriac word), Maisān), within the Delta of the Euphrates-Tigris (Gesenius Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti 823; Tuch); but the antiquity of this name is not established. Dillmann, following LXX, reads מַשָּׂא (see on 25¹⁴) in North Arabia. This as northern limit would just include Diḳlah, if Glaser’s identification, given above, be correct.—סְפָרָה (Σωφηρα) is generally acknowledged to be Ẓafār in the South of Arabia. There were two places of the name: one in the interior of Yemen, North of Aden; the other (now pronounced ’Iṣfār or ’Isfār) on the coast of Mahra, near Mirbāt. The latter was the capital of the Himyarite kings (Gesenius Thesaurus philologicus criticus Linguæ Hebrææ et Chaldææ Veteris Testamenti 968; A Dictionary of the Bible, iv. 437; Encyclopædia Biblica, iv. 4370). Which of the two is here meant is a matter of little consequence.—הַר הַקֶּדֶם] It is difficult to say whether this is an apposition to מוֹשָׁבָם (Tuch al.), or a definition of ספר, or is a continuation of the line beyond ספר. On the first view the ‘mountain’ might be the highlands of central Arabia (Neǧd); the second is recommended by the fact that the eastern Ẓafār lies at the foot of a high mountain, well adapted to serve as a landmark. The third view is not assisted by rendering בֹּאֲכָה ‘in the direction of’ (see on verse ¹⁹); for in any case Ẓafār must have been the terminus in a southern direction. The commonly received opinion is that הר הקדם is the name of the Frankincense Mountain between Ḥaḍramaut and Mahra (see Dillmann).

---

26. Some MSS have חצר־מות, as if = ‘court of death.’