200 JASTROW — THE HAMITE3 AND SEMITES. [ApriU, 



ever presided over the grouping. The view here advanced of the 

 different conceptions regarding Ham by the J-group of writers from 

 that which is found in P also accounts in a rational and, I believe, 

 in a satisfactory way for the manifest contradictions between J and P 

 as, e.g.y the grouping of Asshur with Cush by the former and with 

 Shem by the latter. 



IX. 



In conclusion, a few words about the genealogy of Shem in 

 J and P, which will further illustrate the thesis here main- 

 tained. If Ham in the mind of the nationalistic J is the type of 

 the ''accursed" son, Shem appears with equal distinctness as 

 the favored one. This view is clearly brought out in the blessing 

 over Shem (Gen. 9, 25-27;. The double mention of Shem already 

 shows this, and whether we read with Gratz and Gunkel,^ 



*' Bless, O Jahweh, the tents of Shem," 



or with Budde and Holzinger, 



*' Blessed of Jahweh is Shem," 



there can be no doubt of the preference shown for Shem by the J 

 group of writers to whom this blessing belongs. The source and 

 original force associated with Shem' is as obscure as that of Ham. 

 Back of both names no doubt lies a mass of traditions and possibly 

 also myths which have been lost, but when once in some way the 

 favorable conception in regard to Shem had become current it would 

 be natural for J to make the endeavor to trace the origin of his 

 own people to this favorite son. Such is the purpose of the rather 



iSee above, p. 181 seq. 



2 Shem signifying "fame," "distinction," has been compared with Aryan 

 *' ruler," " noble," as a designation of the favorite group (see Holzinger, Genesisy 

 p. 92), but all such explanations are open to the objection that they assume the 

 introduction of the name to be due to the Hebrew writers, whereas it is evident 

 that both Shem and Ham (which on the same supposition has been explained 

 as *• hot," i.e.y ' the southerners ' of Holzinger, /. <r.) are terms adopted by Hebrew 

 writers and belong presumably to a much earlier age than their use in the Vo/- 

 kertafel. There is much to be said in favor of the view which regards both 

 names as designations of old deities, though this view, likewise, is open to objec- 

 tions which cannot easily be set aside. See Hommel, Altisraelitische Ueberlie- 

 ferung,^^. 47 and 115. 



