Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/308

 (4) ([E], G )] usually understood of the Lydians (Jos. Boch. al.), but it has never been satisfactorily explained how a people in the extreme W of Asia Minor comes to be numbered among the Shemites. An African people, such as appears to be contemplated in v.$13$, would be equally out of place here. A suggestion of Jen.'s deserves consideration: that is the Lubdu,—a province lying "between the upper Tigris and the Euphrates, N of Mt. Masius and its western extension,"—mentioned in KIB, i. 4 (l. 9 fr. below, rd. Lu-up-di), 177 (along with Arrapḫa), 199. See Wi. AOF, ii. 47; Streck, ZA, xiv. 168; Je. 276. In the remaining refs. (Is. 66$19$, Jer. 46$9$, Ezk. 27$10$ 30$5$), the Lydians of Asia Minor might be meant,—in the last three as mercenaries in the service of Eg. or Tyre.

(5) ] a collective designation of the Semitic peoples speaking 'Aramaic' dialects, so far as known to the Hebrews (Nö. EB, 276ff.). The actual diffusion of that family of Semites was wider than appears from OT, which uses the name only of the districts to the NE of Palestine (Damascus especially) and Mesopotamia (Aram-Naharaim, Paddan-Aram): these, however, were really the chief centres of Aramæan culture and influence. In Ass. the Armaiu (Aramu, Arimu, Arumu) are first named by Tiglath-pileser I. (c. 1100) as dwelling in the steppes of Mesopotamia (KIB, i. 33); and Shalmaneser ii. (c. 857) encountered them in the same region (ib. 165). But if Wi. be right (KAT$3$, 28 f., 36), they are referred to under the name Aḫlāmi from a much earlier date (TA Tab.; Ramman-nirari I. [c. 1325]; Ašur-rîš-*îši [c. 1150]: see KIB, v. 387, i. 5, 13). Hence Wi. regards the second half of the 2nd millennium B.C. as the period during which the Aramæan nomads became settled and civilised peoples in Mesopotamia and Syria.

In 1 Ch. 1$17$ the words (v.$23$) are omitted, the four following names being treated as sons of Shem:

(6) ] is doubtless the same tribe which in 22$21$  is classed as the firstborn of Naḥor: therefore presumably somewhere NE of Palestine in the direction of Ḥarran. The conjectural identifications are hardly worth repeating. The other Biblical occurrences of the name are difficult to harmonise. The Uz of Jb. 1$1$, and the Ḥorite tribe mentioned in Gn. 36$20$, point to a SE situation, bordering on or comprised in Edom; and this would also suit La. 4$21$, Je. 25$20$, though in both these passages the reading is doubtful. It is suggested by Rob. Sm. (KM$2$, 61) and We. (Heid. 146) that the name is identical with that of the Arabian god 'Auḍ; and by the former scholar that the OT denotes a number of scattered tribes worshipping that deity (similarly Bu. Hiob. ix.-xi.; but, on the other side, see Nö. ZDMG, xl. 183 f.).

(7) ] Del. (Par. 259) identifies with a district in the neighbourhood of Mt. Masius mentioned by Asshur-nasir-pal. The word (ḥu-li-ia), however, is there read by Peiser as an appellative = 'desert' (KIB, i. 86 f., 110 f.); and no other conjecture is even plausible.

(8) is quite unknown.