1903.] JASTROW — THE HAMITE3 AN'D SEMITES. 201 



awkwardly constructed 21st verse of the loth chapter.^ The curi- 

 ous phrase defining Shem as '' the father of all the sons of Eber " 

 reveals the existence of an earlier tradition, which traced the 

 Hebrews back to Eber. In view of this, one is tempted to conjec- 

 ture that in an older form of the blessing at the end of the 9th 

 chapter, Eber took the place now occupied by Shem, so that the 

 original personages concerned in the blessing and curse were Eber, 

 Canaan and Japheth, subsequently enlarged to Shem, Ham and 

 Japheth. However this maybe, it is interesting and of some impor- 

 tance to observe that when Eber was first associated with Shem, the 

 former was made the son of the latter, whereas in the more scholastic 

 ethnological scheme devised by P, the relationship of Eber to Shem 

 was altered into that of greatgrandfather and greatgrandson.' 

 How far this view already prevailed in pre-exilic days among some 

 groups of writers it is, of course, impossible to say. Of the four' 

 sons of Shem in P, Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad and Aram, it would 

 appear that Elam is used as an inclusive term to embrace Babylo- 

 nia. If this be correct we might have in this use of Elam an indi- 

 cation of the date of P's Volkertafel, inasmuch as such a usage would 

 point to the absorption of Babylonia by a power advancing from 

 Elam. This power would, of course, be none other than Persia, and 

 the use of Elam here as including Babylonia would thus force us to 

 the conclusion that P's list belongs to the close of the exilic period, 

 subsequent to Cyrus' conquest of Babylonia in 539 B.C. The 

 theory, it must be admitted, encounters an obstacle in Arpachshad, 

 if, as seems plausible, the latter embodies a reference to Chaldaea, 

 since it would involve the further supposition of a differentiation 

 on the part of Hebrew writers between Chaldaea and Babylonia. 

 One can understand and indeed recognize the necessity of such a 

 differentiation from the standpoint of one who, while placing Baby- 



1 It reads literally " and to Shem, there was born even he the father of all 

 the sons of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder." Then follows " the sons of 

 Shem are Elam, Asshur, etc." Comparing the beginning of verse 21 with the 

 beginning of verse 25, "and to Eber were born two sons, etc.," we should expect 

 the enumeration of the sons of Shem immediately after the words " and to Shem 

 there was born." 



2 Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber (verse 24). 



3 Omitting Lud, which is a hopeless stumbling block (cf Holzinger, Genesis, 

 p. 105), and which as has above been suggested (p. 190) may have slipped in 

 here through confusion W\\h. yaladxw verse 24. 



