Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/302



doubtless identical with the E-trus-cans of Italy. This brilliant conjecture has since been confirmed by the discovery of the name Turuša amongst the seafaring peoples who invaded Egypt in the reign of Merneptah (Mey. GA$1$, i. § 260; W. M. Müller, AE, 356 ff.).

6, 7, 20. The Hamitic or Southern Group: in Africa and S Arabia, but including the Canaanites of Palestine.

Ḥam. |                          |          |             |         |                       1. Kush. 2. Miẓraim. 3. Puṭ. 4. Canaan. |     |             |            |            |            |

5. Ṣeba. 6. Ḥavilah. 7. Ṣabtah. 8. Ra'mah. 9. Ṣabtekah. |                                        |            |                                    10. Sheba. 11. Dedan.

(1) (G, but elsewhere, )] the land and people S of Egypt (Nubia),—the Ethiopians of the Greeks, the Kôš of the Eg. monuments: cf. Is. 18$1$, Jer. 13$23$, Ezk. 29$10$, Zeph. 3$10$ etc. Ass. Kusu occurs repeatedly in the same sense on inscrs. of Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal; and only four passages of Esarhaddon are claimed by Wi. for the hypothesis of a south Arabian Kusu (KAT$3$, 144). There is no reason to doubt that in this v. the African Kush is meant. That the

5. The subscription to the first division of the Table is not quite in order. We miss the formula (cf. vv.$20. 31$), which is here necessary to the sense, and must be inserted, not (with We.) at the beginning of the v., but immediately before. The clause — is then seen to belong to v.$4$, and to mean that the Mediterranean coasts were peopled from the four centres just named as occupied by sons of Javan. Although these places were probably all at one time Phœnician colonies, it is not to be inferred that the writer confused the Ionians with Phœnicians. He may be thinking of the native population of regions known to Israel through the Phœnicians, or of the Mycenean Greeks, whose colonising enterprise is now believed to be of earlier date than the Phœnician (Mey. EB, 3736 f.).—] construed like in 9$19$ (J); ct. 10$32$.—] only again Zeph. 2$11$. Should we read (Is. 11$11$ 24$15$, Est. 10$1$)? (for, perhaps from [root] ´awa$y$, "betake oneself") seems to be a seafarer's word denoting the place one makes for (for shelter, etc.); hence both "coast" and "island" (the latter also in Phœn.). In Heb. the pl. came to be used of distant lands in general (Is. 41$1. 5$ 42$4$ 51$5$ etc., Jer. 31$10$ etc.)