ISO JASTROW — THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4, 



of the geographical boundaries of Canaanitish settlements, we have 

 lastly the genealogy of Shem, introduced, however, as the opening 

 words show Cv. 21), 



*'To Shem also (sons) were born, the 

 father of all the sons of Eber," 



for the sake of Eber to whom, through the Eber-Peleg line, the 

 Hebrews are directly traced back. Since, however, this genea- 

 logical chain is furnished by P in the following chapter (11, 16-26) 

 the final redactor contented himself in the loth chapter with sup- 

 plying from the J source the genealogical line of the other son of 

 Eber, namely, Joktan. This list of Joktanides (verses 26-30) is 

 most valuable for several reasons. In the first place it furnishes 

 the proof for the thesis that the redactor who combined J and P 

 uses the former source as a supplement to P and secondly it shows 

 conclusively that J ^ contained much fuller indications than the 

 other extracts from it used by P might lead us to believe. Indeed 

 the thirteen subdivisions of Jokian represent a much fuller genea- 

 logical chain than any to be found in P which records only seven 

 subdivisions for Japheth and five for Cush." The special reason 

 why the redactor introduces this long line of Joktanites appears to 

 be because it embodies a varying addition from P which places 

 Havilah among the sons of Cush and Sheba under Raamah the son 

 of Cush (verse 7), whereas the other source includes Havilah and 

 Sheba among the Joktanites (verses 28-29) and thus makes them 

 descendants of Shem. It is hardly reasonable to suppose that so 

 palpable an inconsistency should have escaped the notice of the 

 redactor and it is certainly more plausible to assume that just 

 because of this contradiction between the two sources, both were 

 introduced side by side, in accordance with the general character 

 of historical composition in the ancient Orient which is so largely 

 compilation. The Arabic historians of later days who are the 



1 Or JE {i.e., Jahwist and Elohist) if we follow Gunkel's view as set forth 

 above (p. 179). 



2 If it be assumed that the enumeration of the Eber-Peleg line in the nth 

 chapter has been transferred from its proper place in P's Volkertafel, it would 

 follow that P's list may also have originally been somewhat fuller than at present 

 appears, but this would not alter the main proposition that P represents the 

 basis in the loth chapter of Genesis, supplemented by J and possibly other 

 sources. 



