017. VI. The Traditional Origin Of The Nations
§ VI. THE TRADITIONAL ORIGIN OF THE NATIONS
Genesis 11:1-9; Genesis 9:18 a., Genesis 10:1 b, Genesis 9:19 b, Genesis 9:18 b, Genesis 10:8-15 a, Genesis 10:8 b, Genesis 10:19; Genesis 10:21; Genesis 10:24-30
1.Original unity of the race. Now the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass as they journeyed from the east that they found a plain in the land of Shinar [Babylonia], and dwelt there. Then said they one to another, Come, let us make bricks and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone and bitumen for mortar.
2.Building a city and tower. They also said, Come, let us build us a city and a tower, with its top in the sky; thus let us make ourselves a name, so that we may not be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. But Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men had built.
3.Jehovah’s disapproval. Then Jehovah said, Behold they are one people and they all have one language; and this is the beginning of their achievement, but henceforth nothing, which they purpose to do, will be too difficult for them. Come, let us go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.
4.Origin of different races. So Jehovah scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth; and they ceased building the city. Therefore they called its name Babel [Confusion], because there Jehovah confounded the language of the whole earth, and there Jehovah scattered them over the face of the whole earth.
5. Sons of Noah. And the sons of Noah, who went forth from the ark, were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These three were the sons of Noah, and to them were sons born after the flood, and of these was the whole earth overspread. And Ham was the father of Cush, Mizraim [Egypt], and Canaan.
6.Eastern peoples. And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah; therefore it is said, Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before Jehovah. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. Out of that land he went forth into Assyria and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, Resen, between Nineveh and Calah (that is the great city).
7.Southern peoples. And Mizraim begat Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim, and Caphtorim (whence went forth the Philistines).
8.Palestinian peoples. And Canaan begat Sidon, his first-born, and Heth. And afterward the families of the Canaanite were spread abroad, so that the boundary of the Canaanites was from Sidon, as far as Gerar (to Gaza), and as far as Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboim, to Lasha.
9.Arabian ancestors and kinsmen of the Hebrews. And children were also born to Shem, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder brother of Japheth. And Arpachshad begat Shelah, and Shelah begat Eber. And to Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg [Division], for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan. And Joktan begat Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobab; all these were the sons of Joktan. And their dwelling place was from Mesha, as far as Sephar, the mountain of the East.
10. Their immediateancestors. And Peleg begat Reu, and Reu begat Serug, and Serug begat Nahor, and Nahor begat Terah. And Terah begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.
I.The Two Explanations of the Origin of Languages and Races.
These narratives contain two distinct explanations of the origin of the different languages and races. The older is a simple story in the style of the early Judean historians. The other is what purports to be a genealogical list, but is in reality a table of the nations known to the Hebrews in the period just before the Babylonian exile. It is the immediate sequel of the later Judean prophetic account of the flood and clearly comes from the same source. The genealogical table in its final form in Genesis is supplemented by names from a later priestly table. The sons of Japheth, the distant northwestern and western peoples living in Asia Minor and Greece, the Phoenician colonies skirting the Mediterranean, and the Elamites and the Arameans, are thus added. These are the nations with whom the Israelites became acquainted during and after the period of the exile. The principle of arrangement is nominally ethnological, but in reality it is also geographical, and from the point of view of Israel. The nations not closely related to the Israelites are given first, then their nearer relatives, the Canaanites, and last of all their Aramean ancestors and Arabian kinsmen.
II.Origin of the Story of the Tower of Babel. The background of the story of the Tower of Babel is Babylonia, and the tradition was doubtless inherited by the Hebrews from their Semitic ancestors. It is probable that it originated outside Babylonia, for a Babylonian writer would not have stopped to explain that the building material was brick and that bitumen was used for mortar. He would have known that the lofty mound, about which the tradition centred, was not reared in rebellion, but as a temple site in devotion to the service of the gods. He would also have known that the true derivation of the word Babylon is Bab-il, Gate of God. The popular derivation given in the story is probably from the Aramaic word babil, confusion. All these indications suggest that the tradition was handed down to the Hebrews from their Aramean forefathers, who lived near and yet outside Babylonia. The Tower of Babel, which aroused the wonderment of the desert passers-by, and probably gave rise to the tradition, may have been the zikkurat, or pyramid-like mound of earth, on the west of the Euphrates, now known as Birs Nimroud. It is the foundation of the great temple of Ezida in Borsippa, the western suburb of Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar states in one of his inscriptions that it had been partially built by an earlier king, but its top had not been set up, and it had fallen into disrepair. Nebuchadrezzar himself restored it. The other possible site is the mound of Babil, on the east of the Euphrates in the ruins of Babylon itself. It probably represents the remains of the great temple of Marduk, with its huge pyramid-like foundation. Either of these imposing ruins would have profoundly impressed all passers-by. The fact that the mound of Birs Nimroud early gave the impression of incompleteness favors on the whole its identification as the original Tower of Babel. Also at the basis of the tradition is the popular memory of the greatness of the early Babylonian empire, with its capital at Babylon. It was natural that the same centre should be regarded, as the point from which the human race dispersed over the earth. The popular explanation of the motive for building the tower recalls the Greek tradition of the attempt of the Titans to mount up into heaven. In the prophetic table of the nations, Noah, with his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, corresponds to Hellen of early Greek tradition, whose three sons, AEolus, Dorus, and Ion, were the ancestors of the three great branches of the Hellenic race.
III.Meaning of the Story of the Tower of Babel. Like the narrative of the sons of God and the daughters of men (§ V) the story of the Tower of Babel is placed in the dim, misty age of tradition. The land of Shinar is the early Hebrew name for Babylonia (cf.Genesis 10:10; Genesis 14:19Isaiah 11:11, Zech.5:11, Daniel 1:2). It may be a variation of the old Babylonian name Shumer. On the level plain of Babylonia any elevation seemed lofty by contrast. The great mounds, which the Babylonians reared with infinite toil to be the foundations of their temples, still stand as monuments of human achievement. In the extent of its ruins Babylon, even after thousands of years, is impressive. The chief impression, however, that the ruins of the ancient mounds made on the mind of the Semites who viewed them from afar, was that the spirit and purpose which prompted their builders were sinful. They were symbols of the pride and self-sufficiency of early man and of God’s destructive judgment. The different languages, which constituted a troublesome barrier between races and nations, were also regarded as a punishment for some sin of their primitive ancestors. The very name of Babylon was associated in the mind of ancient Arameans and Hebrews with the similar word meaning confusion. All these varied elements have evidently entered into this story. The point of view and conception of God are those of primitive men. “Let us go down” may be a remnant of the old polytheistic form of the tradition. Possibly the expression is used, as in Genesis 3:22, because the Deity is thought of as standing at the head of the divine hierarchy, even as he is pictured in the prologue to the book of Job. The popular explanations of the ruined tower, of the derivation of the word Babylon, and of the origin of languages are supported by neither history nor philology. It is rather the deeper religious principles that underlie the story in its Hebrew form that have an abiding value. The unity of the entire human race and the universal fatherhood of God were vital facts which other nations were very slow to perceive.
IV.The Hamitic Races. In the later Judean prophetic table, which explains the origin of the various nations by descent from the different sons of Noah, Ham stands as the ancestor of the three peoples who developed the earliest civilizations: the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the Canaanites. The derivation of the word Ham is not certain. It may be from the Semitic root meaning hot or burned, or from the native designation for Egypt which comes from kam, meaning black. In Psalms 78:51; Psalms 105:23; Psalms 105:27 and Psalms 106:22 it refers simply to the Egyptians. In the parallel priestly list, and usually in the Old Testament, Cush refers to the Ethiopians; but here Cush apparently stands for the Kassites (Babylonian, Kasshu), who from their home east of the Tigris came down and conquered and ruled over the lower Tigris-Euphrates valley for many centuries (cf. Introd., II, 12). They were of non-Semitic origin, but the memory of their political supremacy evidently led the Hebrews to regard them as the people from whom were descended the founders of the ancient Babylonian and Assyrian cities and empires.
V.Nimrod the Mighty Hunter. The identification of Nimrod is still uncertain. The statement that he was a son of Cush favors the conclusion held by some, that he is Nazimurudash, one of the later Kassite kings, whose achievements may have given him this prominent place in Hebrew tradition. The reference to Nimrod’s reputation as a mighty hunter has suggested that he is to be identified with Gilgamesh, the mythological hero of the great Babylonian epic, in which are found the stories of creation and deluge. In this epic he is depicted as a famous hunter, and many of his feats in slaying dangerous wild beasts are recounted. Tradition also states that he delivered Babylonia from the rule of the Elamites. Erech, mentioned as one of the four Babylonian cities over which Nimrod first held sway, was, according to the Babylonian epic, the city of Gilgamesh. The name of Nimrudu has not yet been found on the monuments of Babylonia and Assyria, so that this identification still remains only an exceedingly plausible conjecture. Evidently the Hebrew traditions regarding Nimrod were much more detailed than the extract given by the biblical narrator. His object was simply to explain the origin and meaning of the popular proverb, Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before Jehovah.
VI.The Old Babylonian and Assyrian Empires. The testimony of the monuments regarding the history of the great empires of Babylonia and Assyria has already been given in the Introduction (chap. II). Erech is the Babylonian Uruk on the southern bank of the lower Euphrates. Accad (Babylonian, A Mead) is mentioned in an inscription of the twelfth century B.C. as a city, as well as the name of the district which figured in the old Babylonian title, King of Shumer and Akkad. It was somewhere in northern Babylonia. Calneh has not yet been identified.
Although Assyria developed much later than Babylonia (Introd. II, 12), in the biblical tradition their growth is represented as almost contemporary. The statement is true, however, that Assyria was an offspring of the older Semitic state. The old Assyrian capital Asshur (the present Kal’at Sherghat, sixty miles south of Nineveh) is not mentioned. The later capitals, Calah, situated at the point where the upper Zab flows into the Tigris, and Nineveh, eighteen miles further up the Tigris, were the cities best known to the Hebrews in the age when the present table took form. Sennacherib, in the latter part of the eighth century B.C. first made Nineveh the permanent capital of the empire. Rehoboth-Ir means broad places of a city, and is apparently the Hebrew equivalent of the Assyrian rebit Nina, the designation of the northern suburbs of Nineveh. Resen has not yet been identified, but from the description it would seem to have been a southern suburb of Nineveh, connecting the two capitals, so that in the mind of the biblical writer, they, with their outlying towns, are regarded as a single great city.
VII.The Egyptians. Mizraim (literally, the two Egypts, probably including upper and lower Egypt) is the usual Hebrew designation of the land of the Nile. The “sons” of Egypt are the southern peoples known to the Hebrews through war and commerce. The Ludim appear in the days of Jeremiah and Ezekiel as archers in the Egyptian army (cf.Jeremiah 16:19, Ezekiel 27:10; Ezekiel 30:5). Their home was probably on the border of Egypt. The Anamim, Naphtuhim, and Casluhim have not been identified. The Lehabim are probably the Libyans who lived to the east of Egypt. The Pathrusim are the inhabitants of Pathros, the southland of upper Egypt. The Caphtorim are the people of Caphtor, regarded by the Hebrews as the homeland of the Philistines (cf. Amos 9:7, Deuteronomy 2:23, Jeremiah 47:4). Caphtor is probably to be identified with the Egyptian Kefto, the name of a people living originally in Cilicia and Cyprus.
VIII.The Canaanite Races. The “ sons” of Canaan are the peoples whom the Hebrews found in possession of Palestine. That the present list is an ethnological rather than a genealogical table is illustrated by the fact that the city of Sidon is called the first-born of Canaan. Sidon, being the oldest important Phoenician city, here represents the Phoenician branch of the Canaanite race. Heth is the biblical name of the great Hittite nation that held northern Syria in the centuries preceding the advent of the Hebrews. Although their racial origin is still in doubt, it is clear that there was in reality no close relationship between them and the Canaanites. The author probably had in mind the few survivors of the earlier race. These had been so thoroughly assimilated by the Canaanite races of Palestine that a later scribe has at this point added in the Hebrew a list of the local tribes inhabiting Palestine. The original table, however, simply defined the territory occupied by the Canaanites living outside Phoenicia. It extended southward from Sidon along the shore to Gerar, southeast of Gaza. Its eastern boundary was the line extending from Sodom and the neighboring cities, probably at the south of the Dead Sea, to Lasha, which may be but a scribal error for Laish or Dan (§ XXXIV), at the northern end of the Jordan valley.
IX.The Hebrews and their Arabian Kinsmen. Shem means name and his “sons” are the ancestors and tribes closely related to the people of name or renown, the Hebrews. Eber is here not only the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews but also of certain other Arabian tribes. The genealogy of his eldest son Peleg is reserved to the last, for it introduces the immediate forefathers of the Hebrews. The author apparently finds in the name Peleg, which means division, an allusion to the division of the human race into different races, as recorded in the story of the Tower of Babel. From the other brother, Joktan, are descended thirteen tribes living in southern Arabia. Some of them can be identified. Sheleph is a place in the province of Yeman, still bearing the corresponding Arab name. Hazarmaveth is the modern district of Hadramaut, east of Aden and bordering on the Indian Ocean. According to the Arabs, Uzal is the ancient name of the present capital of Yeman. Sheba is the designation of a rich commercial people living in southwestern Arabia. Their inscriptions and the ruins of their temples and cities testify to their advanced civilization. Through the medium of trade it frequently touched that of the Hebrews. Ophir was perhaps a seaport on the east coast of Arabia through which the products of India reached the Semitic world, or else it is to be identified with Abhira at the mouth of the Indus (cf. § LVIII). Havilah was somewhere in central or northeastern Arabia. The territory of these different peoples appears to have extended from the bounds of the central Arabian tribe of Massa to the south coast of Arabia. The mountain of the east is probably the great frankincense mountains which extend east from the modern Daphar.
Only the late priestly version preserves the list of the immediate ancestors of the Hebrews, but it completes the genealogical connection between the list of Israel’s neighbors and the forefathers of the chosen race. Some of the names in the list may be identified as tribal or place names. Serug is a city and district about thirty-eight miles west of Haran, mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions and by the Arabic writers of the Middle Ages. Til-Nahiri, a place near Sarugi, may represent a survival of the name Nahor. These identifications confirm the testimony of the biblical narratives that the Aramean ancestors of the Hebrews came from the region in western Mesopotamia, lying to the east of the upper Euphrates.
X.Aim and Teachings. The chief aim is to trace the origin of the different races and to indicate Israel’s place in the great family of the nations. The broader Semitic background of Hebrew history, and the vital connection between Israel’s life and the powerful civilizations that preceded and influenced it are also suggested. In its origin Israel was not apart from, but rather a part of, the ancient Semitic world, and only in its true setting can its unique history be understood. While their ethnological knowledge was necessarily limited, the early Hebrews were deeply interested in their neighbors. This interest stands in striking contrast to the narrow attitude of most ancient peoples, who classified all outside their race as barbarians. The fundamental unity of all peoples and races is here assumed and concretely set forth. The basis of this unity is the common rule and fatherhood of one God. All the different nations are but different branches of the same great family. All men are, therefore, brothers. While nothing is here said of Israel’s divine mission to the world, the essential foundations are thus laid for that great prophetic doctrine which gradually dawned upon the race.