Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/304



the Babylonians ( = the Persian Gulf). Neither is it altogether natural to suppose that Canaan is thus placed because it had for a long time been a political dependency of Eg.: in that case, as Di. observes, we should have expected Canaan to figure as a son of Mizraim. The belief that Canaan and Israel belonged to entirely different branches of the human family is rooted in the circumstances that gave rise to the blessing and curse of Noah in ch. 9. When, with the extension of geographical knowledge, it became necessary to assign the Canaanites to a larger group (p. 187 above), it was inevitable that they should find their place as remote from the Hebrews as possible.

Of the descendants of Kush (v.$7$) a large proportion—all, indeed, that can be safely identified—are found in Arabia. Whether this means that Kushites had crossed the Red Sea, or that Arabia and Africa were supposed to be a continuous continent, in which the Red Sea formed an inland lake (KAT$3$, 137, 144), it is perhaps impossible to decide.

(5) ] Is. 43$3$ 45$14$, Ps. 72$10$; usually taken to be Meröe (between Berber and Khartoum). The tall stature attributed to the people in Is. 45$14$ (but cf. 18$2. 7$) is in favour of this view; but it has nothing else to recommend it. Di. al. prefer the Saba referred to by Strabo (xvi. iv. 8, 10; cf. Ptolemy, iv. 7. 7 f.) on the African side of the Red Sea (S of Suakim). Je. (ATLO$2$, 265) considers the word as the more correct variant to (see below).

(6) (][])] often (since Bochart) explained as 'sand-land' (fr. ); named in v.$29$ (J) as a Joḳṭanite people, and in 25$18$ (also J) as the eastern limit of the Ishmaelite Arabs. It seems impossible to harmonise these indications. The last is probably the most ancient, and points to a district in N Arabia, not too far to the E. We may conjecture that the name is derived from the large tract of loose red sand (nefūd) which stretches N of Teima and S of el-Ǧōf. This is precisely where we should look for the whom Eratosthenes (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2) mentions (next to the Nabateans) as the second of three tribes on the route from Egypt to Babylon; and Pliny (vi. 157) gives Domata (= Dûmāh = el-Ǧōf: see p. 353) as a town of the Avalitæ. The name might easily be extended to other sandy regions of Arabia, (perhaps especially to the great sand desert in the southern interior): of some more southerly district it must be used both here and v.$29$ (see Mey, INS, 325 f.). To distinguish further the Cushite from the Joktaniteṭanite above], and to identify the former with the , etc., on the African coast near Bab-el-mandeb, is quite unnecessary. On the other hand, it is impossible to place either of these so far N as the head of the Persian Gulf (Glaser) or the ENE part of the Syrian desert (Frd. Del.). Nothing can be made of Gn. 2$11$; and in 1 Sa. 15$7$ (the only other occurrence) the text is probably corrupt.

(7) ] not identified. Possibly, Sabota, the capital of Ḥaḍramaut (see on v.$26$) (Strabo, XVI. iv. 2; Pliny, HN, vi. 155, xii. 63),—though in Sabæan this is written [Sabæan: **] (see Osiander, ZDMG,