176 JASTROW — THE HAMITE3 AND SEMITES. [April 4, 



11. 



Beginning with lo, i% as a heading, 



*' These are the generations of the sons of 

 Noah; Shem, Ham and Japheth," 



P furnishes (verses 2-5) the list of nations sprung from Japheth and 

 then takes up (vv. 6-7) the second son Ham, the close of which 

 enumeration is to be sought in v. 20. Thirdly, Shem, the oldest son, 

 is taken up (vv. 22-23), the continuation appearing in v. 31, while 

 V. 32 represents the conclusion of the version as follows : 



*' These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their 

 generations, according to their tribes and from them the nations 

 were divided in the earth after the flood." 



It will be observed that in this compact survey, resting on the 

 theory of the descent of all the nations of the earth from a single 

 ancestor, Noah, through three groups represented by Noah's three 

 sons, there are decided inequalities in treatment. Of the sons of 

 Japheth, only two, Gomer and Javan, are carried down into further 

 subdivisions. In the genealogy of Ham, only one, Cush, is singled 

 out for further subdivision, but this one is carried down through 

 its branch, Raamah, into a further subdivision, while of the sons 

 of Shem, again, only one, Aram, is further subdivided. Now it is 

 noticeable that none of these nations particularly singled out are 

 such as have had any close or direct contact with the Hebrews. 

 The identification of Gomer with the Gimirrai who appear in the 

 inscriptions of Assyrian kings being quite certain,^ the subdivisions 

 of Gomer, viz., Ashkenaz,^ Riphath and Togarmah, must likewise 

 represent peoples whose settlements are to be sought in the north- 

 eastern or eastern section of Asia Minor. They belong to the 

 *' extreme north,"' have nothing to do with Hebrew history and 

 could only have been of interest to Hebrews because of the general 

 terror inspired throughout the ancient Orient by the threatening 



1 Cf. Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, i, p. 62, and 

 Meyer, Geschichte des Altert/mms, i, pp. 516 and 543-548. 



2 Distorted from Ashkuza, according to Winckler {Keilinschriften and das 

 Alte Testament, i, p. loi), who regards them as the Scythians. 



^Cf. Ezekiel 38, 6. Ashkunaz is only referred to once again in the Old Tes- 

 tament, viz., Jer. 51, 27; Riphath not at all and Togarmah twice in Ezekiel 

 27, 14; 38, 6. The parallel Vdlkertafel (I chr. i, 5-25) dependent on Genesis 

 10 is, of course, excluded from consideration. 



