The exact character of the scattering is difficult to infer. The cause, according to the ordinary explanation of the narrative, was the Confusion of Tongues, but some have supposed the latter to have been the consequence of the Dispersion. It is remarkable that, in the tenth chapter of Genesis, a division of the Gentiles is spoken of, as though the territories of existing nations of another stock had been portioned out among the children of Noah. It is said, after the enumeration of the sons of Japheth By these the isles of the nations were divided in their lands ; [every] man according to his tongue, according to their families, in their na tions' (ver. 5) ; and at the close of the whole enu meration : These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations, and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood' (ver. 32). With these passages must be compared that in the Song of Moses, already noticed : When the Most High gave nations for a possession, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of peoples according to [or perhaps, prospectively, even to'] the number of the children of Israel' (Deut. xxxii. 8).
There is perhaps no distinct reference to the building of the Tower, and the Dispersion,. in the traditions of any heathen nation. The Greek story of the giants who piled mountains one upon another to reach Olympus, is perhaps the most probable trace. Unlike the case of the Flood, there is no clear evidence that the Dispersion made a strong impression upon the minds of those who witnessed and shared in it. This would indicate that it was unaccompanied by any great outward manifestation of God's anger, and was the immediate consequence of such difficulties as would arise from the sudden division of mankind into tribes speaking different languages or dialects.
3. The List of the Descendants of Noah.—The subject we have now reached—the examination of the list of Genesis x., with the view of fixing the geographical places and ethnological character istics of Noachians—forms the most important section of this article. It will be necessary to lay down some principles for comparing the list with foreign evidence, which may prevent our hazarding any of those arbitrary conjectures which have need lessly and most inconveniently increased the litera ture of the subject.
A. Mere similarity, or even identity of name, is not a sure guide. So remarkable a name as Hazarmaveth can scarcely be mistaken when we find it in Hadramhwt. Such a name would not be repeated, and the Hadramawt we discover in Arabia cannot be doubted to indicate the settlement of Joktan's son Hazarmaveth ; but this is an ex ceptional case. When the similarity of Dodanim to Dodona, or its various reading, Rodanim to Rhodes, is considered to be a sufficient proof of identity, all criticism is set at defiance. Let us look, therefore, for some sound method of identification.
B. The list is, in one aspect, a kind of geographi cal table : many names in its descents are found in later places of Scripture as geographical terms designating nations, or at least important tribes.
Therefore— a. We must not look for a name in that of a town. There is an exception, probably not the only one, in the case of Sidon, the city of the Sidonians, who were doubtless a Canaanite tribe, but to trace names in general in those of towns is very hazardous.
b. The tracing of a nation or tribe to a name in the list is of little value, unless neighbouring or kindred nations, or nations otherwise markedly connected with it, can also be traced to the same -part of the list.
C. Preference must always be given to the oldest documents in seeking for identifications. Next to the O. T., the Egyptian, Assyrian, and Babylonian monuments must be cited. In each set of docu ments, the notices nearest in point of time are always likely to be the best commentators ; for it must be remembered that migrations and deportations are less likely to affect evidence the earlier it is.
D. Although the list is geographical, its form is genealogical ; and it does sometimes, and may frequently, state or convey the name of the founder of a nation or tribe.
a. We must not attempt to identify a founder's name in the traditions of nations, except where it is distinctly there mentioned as such.
b. As before, we must not be satisfied unless the identification is supported by the geographical position of the founder's nation, or its ethnological character, or else by some marked characteristics, connecting it with other names identified in the same part of the list.
E. In citing non-Semitic names, we must be careful to determine the principles upon which they could be compared with Semitic names.
We may first take the names of Noah's sons, which would probably be traceable as those of founders.
Shem is always mentioned first of the three sons of Noah when their names occur together, the order being Shem, Ham, and Japheth. In Gen. x. 21 he is called the elder brother of Japheth,' which the A. V. incorrectly translates the brother of japheth the elder,' where a comma after Japheth' gives the correct sense. In the list of that chapter, notwithstanding the occurrence of the usual order in ver. 1, the sons of Japheth are first mentioned, then those of Ham, and lastly those of Shem, the order being inverted. It has been supposed that Shem was put at the close of the list that the com paratively foreign subject of the other descendants of Noah might not form a digression in the history of the Shemites and their Hebrew branch. The Japhethites may have been put at the head of the list as the most widely spread, and so the most distant ; and for a like reason the Hamites may have preceded the Shemites, the order being that of the extent of colonization. Or, again, the order may be geographical, from west to east, in accord ance with the western, central, and eastern posi tions of the three great stocks. We shall see that the details favour the last view.