1903.] JASTROW — THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 205 



and, indeed, exclusively in Hebrew history would be wholly 

 indifferent. The Japhethites are, accordingly, no longer '' a group 

 dwelling in the tents of Shem," but quite outside of these tents. 

 More marked is the contrast between J and P in regard to the 

 Hamites. While here, too, it happens that from P's point of view 

 Egypt falls into the category of the Hamites, still the whole char- 

 acter of Ham's genealogy in P shows that this is done because of 

 the agreement with P's definition of Hamites as embracing the 

 '' remote'' nations of the south. In the mind of J, however, the 

 Hamites take the place of Canaan, the "accursed " son of Noah, 

 and the enlargement of Canaan to Ham furnishes him with the 

 opportunity of adding to Canaan a whole series of nations who, 

 because of the mischief they wrought at one time or the other in 

 Hebrew history, merit the fate of being cast into the purgatory of 

 the "accursed" nations. From this point of view, J includes 

 Egypt among the Hamites and adds to Canaan and Egypt, the Baby- 

 lonians and Assyrians, as well as the Philistines, while subsequent 

 writers, actuated by the same spirit as J, are at pains to specify the 

 subdivisions of the Canaanites, and with a view of leaving no pos- 

 sible loophole for such types of " wickedness " as Sodom and 

 Gomorrah, even indicate the exact boundaries of the Canaanitish 

 settlements. The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah, even if the 

 view above set forth that the names are intended to include Moab 

 and Ammon be not accepted, shows too clearly to admit of any 

 doubt the picture in J's mind of the character and nature of the 

 Hamites. 



Coming to Shem, there is a closer approach to be observed be- 

 tween the views of J and P and yet even here there are some strik- 

 ing contrasts. Not only is P's list of Shemites on the whole more 

 inclusive, since he makes them extend from Elam in the East to 

 Aram and Palestine in the West, though on the other hand he ex- 

 cludes the southern Arabs who in J represent the southern branch 

 of Eber-Joktan, but his historical standpoint is also larger than that 

 of J, since he embodies in his list not only the tradition of the 

 original home of the Hebrews but draws the proper conclusion from 

 this tradition that the inclusion of Arpachshad or Chald^ea among 

 the sons of Shem carries with it Babylonia (including Elam) and 

 Assyria. J in all probabilities included Aram by the side of 

 Arpachshad among the sons of Shem, but his point of view is that 

 of one who is exclusively interested in Hebrew history. The im- 



