Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/291



assigned to J$e$ because of the peculiar use of in $8$ (cf. 9$20$ 4$26$). V.$13f.$ must in any case be J$j$, because it is inconceivable that Egypt should ever have been thought of as a son of Canaan; $25-29$ follow $21$ (J$e$). V.$30$ is assigned to J$j$ 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 9$20ff.$ or 10$15$; 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. KM$2$, 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