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



merged into one. However this may be, so much is certain that 

 Arpachshad is still to be sought within or near the district repre- 

 sented by Babylonia and Assyria. More puzzling than Arpachshad 

 is the fourth subdivision Lud, and no entirely satisfactory explanation 

 of its occurrence here has as yet been offered. Certainly Lud in P's 

 list can have nothing but the name in common with the Lud that 

 occurs in Isaiah 66, 19, and in Ezekiel 27, 10 and 30, 5 — which is 

 clearly Lydia in Asia Minor — and unless we assume (as I am in- 

 clined to do) that the introduction of Lud in Genesis 10, 22 is due 

 to an error — 



Arpachshad w*-Lud 



being here (verse 22} superinduced by 



Arpachshad ya-lad 



in verse 24^ — w^e must provisionally accept the possibility of there 

 having been a district Lud between the Babylonian-Assyrian dis- 

 trict and what P understood by Aram. For the present, there are 

 no substantial reasons for questioning on this account the thesis 

 here maintained that in P the Shemites represent Babylonia and 

 Assyria and the groups adjacent, in contrast to the Japhethites and 

 Hamites who represent the remote nations in the various directions 

 of the compass. We may, therefore, conclude that P's list, taken 

 as a whole and leaving aside more or less obscure details which do 

 not, however, upset the general conclusion, betrays the learned 

 compiler whose geographical horizon has been enlarged by becom- 

 ing subject to his Babylonian environment. In addition to gather- 

 ing some of his geographical knowledge from Babylonian docu- 

 ments or through intercourse with the learned scribes of Babylonia, 

 his general point of view in his grouping of nations has regard for 

 interests affecting Babylonia and Assyria, as in the case of the 

 northern and northeastern branches of the Japhethites, or is deter- 

 mined, as in his grouping of Shemites, by his residence in Babylonia. 

 The purely scholastic character of the list is interfered with only 

 by the addition of Canaan to the Hamitic group, the introduction 



1 Wiedemann supposes (^Gesc/iichie Aegyptens, p. 24), that Lud is the 

 original form of Rut which with a «' denominative " ending — i.e., Ruten — occurs 

 in Egyptiaa inscriptions as the designation of Syria and Palestine. See however 

 the objections to this conjecture in Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and the 

 Old Testament, i, p, 99. Nor is Jensen's proposition to read Lubdi (adopted by 

 Jeremias, A. T. im Lichte des alt en Orients, p. 170), at all satisfactory. 



