HALLOHESH ; Sept. 'ANonjr, Alex.
'A505), one of the chiefs of the people who sealed the covenant with Nehemiah (x. 24). It is the same name which appears in the A. V. as IIALOSI1ETII GEL 12). Probably the first syllable is the article, and the word means the whisperer or wizaid.—±.
HAM or CHAM ; LXX. Xd,tc; Vulg.
Cham) was one of the three sons of Noah.
Ham's place in his Fantily. Idolatly connected with kis Name.—Like his brothers he was mar ned at the time of the Deluge, and with his wife was saved from the general destruction in the ark which his father had prepared at God's command. He was thus with his family a connecting link be tween the antediluvian population and those who survived the Flood. The salient fact of his impiety and dishonour to his father has also caused him to be regarded as the transmitter and representative in the renovated world of the worst features of idolatry" and profaneness, which had grown to so fatal a consummation amongst the antediluvians. The old commentators, full of classical associa tions, saw in Noah and his sons the counterpart of Kp6vos, or Saturn, and his three divine sons, of whom they identified Jupiter or Zeiiis with Ham, especially, as the name suggested, the African .epiter Ammon clip/hap ^yap [or, more correctly, 'Aicof.iv, so Gaisford and Baehr], A1761-1-toi KaXeouo-L 76v Afa, Herod. Eziterp., 42 - Plutarch explains 'Aizofiv by the better known form "Aw.ccup, Is. et Osir. 1X. ID Jer. xlvi. 25, the multitude of No' is Nbn tinN, Amon of No ; so in Nahum iii. 8, ` Populous No' is No-Anton, nCN N:.). For the identificationt of Jupiter Ammon with Ham, see J. Conr. Dannhauer's Politica Biblica, • is. V ossius, de Idol., lib. ii. cap. 7). One of the reasons which leads Bochart (Phaleg. r, ed. Villemand, p. 7) to identify Ham with Jupiter or Zeus, is derived from the meanins-of the names. an (from the root ann, to be hot) combines the ideas hot and swarthy (comp. Al9-14.); accordingly St. Jerome, who renders our word by calicius, and Simon (Onamast. p. to3) by niker, are not incom patible. In like manner Zri%s is derived afervendo, arcoi ding to the author of the'Eeyntol. Magn.,rapa rip Vcrtv, 9-Epg6raros yip 6 eop, ?rap& 76 Vo.i, to seethe or boil, fervere. Cyril of Alexandria uses 9-cpbcao-lav 2.s synonymous (1. ii. Glaphyr. in Genes.) Another reason of identification, according to Dothan, is the fanciful one of comparative age. Zeus was the youngest of three brothers, and sc was Ham in the opinion of this author. He is not alone in this view of the subject.* Gesenius (Thes. p. 489) calls him filius natu tertius et mini mus ; similarly Fiirst (Hebr. Worterb. i. 40S), Knobel (die Gen. erkl. p. rot), Delitzsch (Comment. z7ber die Gen. p. 2So), and Kalisch (Genesis, p. 229), who lays down the rule in explanation of the In it?pn applied to Ham in Gen. ix. 24, `if there are more than two sons, '1"1 p is the eldest, p the youngest son,' and he aptly pares I Sam. xvii. 13, 14. The LXX., it is true, like the A. V., renders by the parative-6 vethrepos, his younger son.' But, throughout, Shan is the term of comparison, the central point of blessing from whom all else diverge. IIence not only is Ham iyin 6 yfd., repos., in comparison with Shem, but Japhet is relatively to the same 5i1;r1, 6 Actglev (see Gen. x.
21). That this is the proper meaning of this latter passage, which treats of the age of Japhet, the eldest son of Noah, we are convinced by the con sideration just adduced, and our conviction is sup ported by the LXX. translators, Symmachus, Raschi,t Abenezra, Luther, Junius, and Tremellius, Piscator, Mercerus, Arias, Montanus, Clericus, Dathius, J. D. Michaelis, and Mendelssohn, who gives a powerful reason for his opinion : `The tonic accents make it clear that the word 11.171, the elder, applies to Yapheth ; wherever the words of the text are obscure and equivocal, great respect and ' attention must be paid to the tonic accents, as their author understood the true meaning of the text better than we do' (De Sola, Lindenthal, a.nd
Raphall's Trans. of Genesis, p. 43). In consistency with this seniority of Japhet, his name and gene alogy are first given in the Tola'oth Beni Noah, of , Gen. x..T ['The table, which we present in a genealogical method, will speak for itself. The abbreviations. denote the names of the commentators quoted ; the italicised words indicate the countries in which the descendants of Ham settled ; and the Greek words are those by which Josephus renders the proper names which occur in Ham's history, as he states it, in his Antiy. 7ud. i. 4. and 6. 2.] De...scena'ants of Ilam, and their locality.—With the particulars of this important document we have here no further to do than so far as it has relation to the posterity of Ham, i. e., with the second sec tion contained in vers. 6-2o. The loose distribution, which assigns ancient Asia to Shem, and ancient Africa to Ham, requires much modification ; for although the Shemites had but little connection with Africa, the descendants of Ham had, on the con trary, wide settlements in Asia, not only on the shores of the Syrian, Mediterranean, and in the Arabian peninsula, but (as we learn from linguistic discoveries, which minutely corroborate the letter of the Mosaic statements, and refute the assertions of modern rationalism) in the plains of Mesopotamia. One of the most prominent facts alleged in Gen. x. is the foundation of the earliest monarchy by the grandson of Ham, in Babylonia. Cush [the eldest son of Ham] begat Nimrod . . . the beginning of whose kingdom was Babel [margin, Babylon], and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar' (vers. 6, 8, io). Here we have a primitive Babylonian empire distinctly declared to have been Hamitic, through Cush. For the com plete vindication of this statement of Genesis from the opposite statements of Bunsen, Niebuhr, Heeren, and others, we must refer the reader to Rawlinson's Five great Monarchies, vol. i. chap. iii., compared with his Historical Evidences, etc. [Bampton Lec tures], pp. 18, 68, 355-357. The idea of an Asiatic Cush' was declared by Bunsen to be an imagination of interpreters, the child of despair' (Phil. of Univ. Hist. i. i91). But in 1858 Sir H. Rawlinson having obtained a number of Babylonian documents more ancient than any previously dis covered, was able to declare authoritatively, that the early inhabitants of South Babylonia were of a cosnate race with the primitive colonists both of Arabia ancl of the African Ethiopth (Rawlinson's Heradaus i. 442). He found their vocabulary to be undoubtedly Clishite or Ethiopian, belonging to that stock of tongues which in the sequel were every where more or less mixed up with the Semitic languages, but of which we have the purest modern specimens in the Illahra of Southern Arabia and the Galla of Abyssinia (Ibid, note 9). He found also that the traditions both of Babylon and Assyria pointed to a connection in very early times between Ethiopia-, Southern Arabia, and the cities on the lower Euphrates.' We have here evidence both of the widely-spread settlements of the children of Ham, in Asia, as well as Africa, and (what is now especially valuable) of the truth of the loth chapter of Genesis, as an ethnographical document of the highest importance.* This is not the place to give full details of the settlement of Ham's posterity in Asia and Africa. As, however, the subject is of growing interest, and in order to present the reader with a general view of facts, which are spread over many volumes, we propose to collect in a table the various opinions of some leading commentators as to the several countries, which were colonised by the descendants of Ham, referring the reader for our own views of the details to the different articles in this work which are devoted to the subject.