Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/307

 early times (after 3000 B.C.) inhabited by Semitic settlers ruled by viceroys of the Babylonian kings; about 2280 the Anzanite element (of a different race and speaking a different language) gained the upper hand, and even established a suzerainty over Babylonia. From that time onwards Elam was a powerful monarchy, playing an important part in the politics of the Euphrates valley, till it was finally destroyed by Assurbanipal. The reason for including this non-Semitic race among the sons of Shem is no doubt geographical or political. The other OT reff. are Gn. 14$1. 9$, Is. 11$12$ 21$2$ 22$6$, Jer. 25$25$ 49$34ff.$, Ezk. 32$24$, Dn. 8$2$.

(2) ] Assyria. See below on v.$11$ (p. 211).

(3) ] identified by Boch. with the which Ptol. (vi. 1. 2) describes as the province of Assyria next to Armenia,—the mountainous region round the sources of the Upper Zab, between lakes Van and Urumia, still called in Kurdish Albâk. This name appears in Ass. as Arapḫa (Arbaḫa, etc.), and on Eg. monuments of the 18th dynasty as 'Ararpaḫa (Müller, AE, 278 f.). Geographically nothing could be more suitable than this identification: the difficulty is that the last syllable is left unaccounted for. Jos. recognised in the last three letters the name of the Chaldeans, and several attempts have been made to explain the first element of the word in accordance with this hint. (a) The best is perhaps that of Cheyne (EB, 318), resolving the word into two proper names: or  (= Ass. Arbaḫa) and ,—the latter here introducing a second trio of sons of Shem. On this view the Arpakšad of v.$24$ 11$10ff.$ must be an error (for ?) caused by the textual corruption here. (b) An older conjecture, approved by Ges. (Th.), Knobel, al., compares the with Ar. 'urfat (= 'boundary'), Eth. arfat (= 'wall'); would thus be the 'wall (or boundary) of Kesed.' (c) Hommel (AHT, 212, 294-8) takes the middle syllable pa to be the Egyptian art., reading 'Ur-pa-Kesed = Ur of the Chaldees (11$28$),—an improbable suggestion. (d) Del. (Par. 255 f.) and Jen. (ZA, xv. 256) interpret the word as arba-kišādu = '[Land of the] four quarters (or shores),' after the analogy of a common designation of Babylonia in royal titles.—These theories are partly prompted by the observation that otherwise Chaldea is passed over in the Table of P,—a surprising omission, no doubt, but perhaps susceptible of other explanations. The question is complicated by the mention of an Aramean Kesed in 22$22$. The difficulty of identifying that tribe with the Chaldeans in the S of Babylonia is admitted by Dri. (p. 223); and if there was another Kesed near Ḥarran, the fact must be taken account of in speculating about the meaning of Arpakšad.