assigned to Je because of the peculiar use of (
Hebrew characters) in 8 (cf. 920 426). V.13f.
must in any case be Jj, because it is inconceivable that Egypt should
ever have been thought of as a son of Canaan; 25-29 follow 21 (Je). V.30
is assigned to Jj solely on account of its resemblance to 19. It cannot
be denied that these arguments (which are put forward with reserve)
have considerable cumulative force; and the theory may be correct.
At the same time it must be remembered (1) that the distinction between
a wider and a narrower geographical conception of Canaan remains a
brilliant speculation, which is not absolutely required either by 920ff. or
1015; and (2) that there is nothing to show that the story of Noah, the
vine-grower, was followed by a Table of Nations at all. A genealogy
connecting Shem with Abraham was no doubt included in that document;
but a writer who knows nothing of the Flood, and to whom
Noah was not the head of a new humanity, had no obvious motive for
attaching an ethnographic survey to the name of that patriarch.
Further criticism may be reserved for the notes.
The names in the Table are throughout eponymous:
that is to say, each nation is represented by an imaginary
personage bearing its name, who is called into existence for
the purpose of expressing its unity, but is at the same time
conceived as its real progenitor. From this it was an easy
step to translate the supposed affinities of the various
peoples into the family relations of father, son, brother, etc.,
between the eponymous ancestors; while the origin of the
existing ethnic groups was held to be accounted for by the
expansion and partition of the family. This vivid and concrete
mode of representation, though it was prevalent in
antiquity, was inevitably suggested by one of the commonest
idioms of Semitic speech, according to which the individual
members of a tribe or people were spoken of as 'sons' or
'daughters' of the collective entity to which they belonged.
It may be added that (as in the case of the Arabian tribal
genealogies) the usage could only have sprung up in an
age when the patriarchal type of the family and the rule of
male descent were firmly established (see Rob. Sm. KM2,
3 ff.)·
That this is the principle on which the Tables are constructed
appears from a slight examination of the names, and is universally
admitted. With the exception of Nimrod, all the names that can be
identified are those of peoples and tribes (Madai, Sheba, Dedan, etc.)
or countries (Miẓraim, Ḥavilah, etc.—in most cases it is impossible to
say whether land or people is meant) or cities (Zidon); some are
gentilicia (Jebusite, Ḥivvite, etc.); and some are actually retained in
