Generations of Noah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ungtss (talk | contribs) at 01:13, 29 December 2004 (some scholars). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The sons of Noah are named in Genesis 10 as Shem, Ham, and Japheth. According to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, all of humanity is descended from Noah, his wife, and Noah's three sons. The Genealogies of Genesis track the ancestors and descendents of these three people, give the ages at which they had a child and the age at which they died, and in some cases give some information about what they did, what happened during their lifetime, or what cities they founded. The sons of Noah appear again in genealogies in I Chronicles 1, and in Luke 3:23-38, which tracks the genealogy of Jesus back to Shem.

The Genealogies and their reputed nations

According to Genesis 10, the present population of the world was descended from Noah's three sons. Broadly speaking, interpreters have made Japheth the father of the European races: (though "Europe" does not appear in the texts), Shem the father of the Semites, and Ham the father of the Asiatic and Negroid peoples. The listed children of Ham, Shem, and Japheth correspond to various historic nations and people groups, including Mizraim (Egypt), Gomer, Sheba, Canaan, Sidon, and Sin (sometimes connected with the Latin root "Sinic," or Chinese), who are believed to have founded the cities and civilizations that were later to bear their names.

Today, traditionalist Hebrews still trace their lineage through Shem, Eber (which become Heber, or Hebrew), Abraham, and Isaac. Arab Muslims trace their lineage through Shem, Eber, Abraham, and Ishmael. The two groups dispute, however, whether Isaac or Ishmael was the legitimate son of Abraham. The Yoruba of West Africa trace their lineage through Ham.

Until the mid 19th century, the genealogies in Genesis were taken as historical fact (see Links). It is still taken as historical by orthodox Jews, Muslims, and such Christians as take Genesis to be historically accurate.

Some modern scholars, however, reject the traditional view of historicity, and hold instead that the genealogy reflects the ethnic groupings and changing socio-political alliances of the time and places of the oral traditions, perhaps re-edited at the time of the text's final composition in the 7th century BC, rather than any genuine history of human origins. They argue that the geneologies instead reflect the attitudes of the ancient Hebrew authors of the Bible toward their neighbors; that those with whom the authors felt the closest affinity were grouped as descendants of Shem, those with whom there was the deepest animosity were grouped as sons of Ham (whose son Canaan was cursed by Noah), and the foreigners who were invading their shores from across the sea (Yavan) or from the East (Medes) were identified with Japheth. This latter identification is corroborated by Genesis 9:27, "God shall enlarge Japheth (literally: 'beautify Japheth'), and he shall dwell in the house of Shem." In Hebrew, this verse uses a pun on the name Japheth, which comes from the Semitic root Y-Ph-T and means beauty: the verse is apparently a reference to the cultural innovations that these newcomers brought to the region.

Disputed geneologies

While some of the eponymous ancestors of the peoples mentioned in these lists are easily identifiable, intended identities of others are subjects of dispute among scholars.

In some instances, similar names reappear in different contexts. Some scholars interpret this is merely being the use of the same name for different people. Other scholars assert that this reflects contradictory traditions among the Hebrew tribes compiled into the same text.

For example, a Noah is named as a son of Cain and a son of Seth. "Dodanim" (10:4) (another grammatical plural) is listed as a son of Javan (possibly identified with the Ionians) the son of Japheth, yet "Dodanim" is also the plural form of Dedan (Genesis 10:7), who appears as the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham. Similar replication of names occurs with Ashur, the legendary eponymous ancestor of the Assyrians, and the name also appears in the Ham narrative (10:11) and as a descendant of Shem (10:22). Also Aram the son of Shem is not to be confused with the Aramean descendants of Kemuel (22:21) line. It appears also that places were named for people, or shared names (e.g. Tarshish, or Tarsus), and personal names (e.g. Nimrod) also appear in the groupings.

Traditions Regarding the Order of Sons by Age

As for mutual relation among the three sons, the most common belief regards Shem as the eldest son, Ham as the second son, and Japheth as the youngest son. However this cannot be deduced from the Book of Genesis itself which only mentions that Noah began to have Japheph, Ham, and Shem 100 "years" before the flood (in 2470 BC according to some bible chronologies) and that Shem began to have children two years after the flood when he was 100 "years" old, meaning Shem was born two years after the first child Noah had at age 500, when Noah was 502 years of age (2468 B.C.E.); and since Ham appears to be referred to as the “youngest son” (Ge 9:24), Japheth would logically be the first son born to Noah, when he was 500 years of age. A passage in Genesis 10:21 is by some translated as “Japheth the oldest”, while some translators understand the Hebrew text here to refer to Shem as “the elder brother of Japheth.” The time of Ham’s birth is not stated in the scriptures.

The Jewish tradition that Ham was the eldest dropped out of favour for reasons of racial prejudice. Some other beliefs, in particular Mormonism, regard Japheth as the eldest, with Shem and Ham being younger.

A selective summary of Genesis:

  • Genesis 5:23: "And Noah got to be five hundred years old. After that Noah became father to Shem, Ham and Ja´pheth."
  • Genesis 7:6: "And Noah was six hundred years old when the deluge of waters occurred on the earth."
  • Genesis 9:24: "Finally Noah awoke from his wine and got to know what his youngest son had done to him."
  • Genesis 10:21: "And to Shem, the forefather of all the sons of E´ber, the brother of Ja´pheth the oldest, there was also progeny born."
  • Genesis 11:10: "Shem was a hundred years old when he became father to Ar·pach´shad two years after the deluge."

The historicity of the genealogies

The genealogies (toledot. "generations") were of great importance in ancient Israel. A priest was required to demonstrate the purity of the pedigree of his prospective bride as far back as her great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother. In the case of marriage with a daughter of Levi or of Israel his scrutiny had to extend a degree further, perhaps a sign that more relaxed attitudes toward marrying non-Jews had prevailed in the northern kingdom. The Pharisees emphasized the nobility of learning as opposed to the priestly-caste nobility insisted upon by the Sadducees. The generations are mentioned by Josephus, and their loss in AD 70 was considered disastrous.

The genealogies as recorded in Genesis were assuredly intended not as myth, but as history. The matter-of-fact style of writing, the degree of detail, the fact that ages are given for when fathers had sons and when they died, are all presented as history by the writers of Genesis. The New Testament authors of Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38) also took the traditional genealogies as history and applied them in tracking Jesus' ancestry back to Shem.

In the beginning of the 20th century, academic opinion regarding the historicity of the genealogies split. For example:

"It is thus evident that the Table of Nations contains no scientific classification of the races of mankind. Not only this, however, it also offers no historically true account of the origin of the races of mankind." (Driver 114).

"The so-called Table of Nations remains, according to all results of monumental explorations, an ethnographic original document of the first rank which nothing can replace." (Kautzsch 234).

In the early 20th century, some anthropologists determined that ethnicity is a construct, as argued by Herodotus, and that the genealogies of Genesis were primitive efforts towards creating an ethnology that would express the degrees of alienness or relatedness the authors of such genealogies sensed among those neighboring peoples of whom they were aware. For instance:

"The object of this Table is partly to show how the Hebrews supposed the principle nations known to them to be related to each other, partly to assign Israel, in particular, its place among them.
The names are in no case to be taken as those of real individuals.
The real origin of the nations enumerated here, belonging in many cases to entirely different racial types - Semites, Aryans, Hittites, Egyptians - must have reached back into remote prehistoric ages from which we may be sure not even the dimmest recollections could have been preserved at the time when the chapter was written. The nations and tribes existed: and imaginary ancestors were afterwards postulated for the purpose of exhibiting pictorially the relationship in which they were supposed to stand towards one another.
An exactly parallel instance, though not so fully worked out, is afforded by the ancient Greeks. The general name of the Greeks was Hellenes, the principle sub-divisions were the Dorians, the Aeolians, the Ionians, and the Achaeans; and accordingly the Greeks traced their descent from a supposed eponymous ancestor Hellen, who had three sons, Dorus and Aeolus, the supposed ancestors of the Dorians and Aeolians, and Xuthus, from whose two sons, Ion and Achaeus, the Ionians and Achaeans were respectively supposed to be descended. (Driver 112);(Malkin 2001). Arguments are also made that comparisons may also be made with the Welsh folk genealogies that trace their king-lines back to Troy.

Other scholars, however, continue to hold that the Table of Nations is the most historically accurate account of early human history available, and reject the above analysis, arguing that "Since, as we shall see, the Table certainly does not on its face bear any evidence of being written for propaganda purposes, Driver appears to be reading more into the record than is justified. It is rather like setting up a straw man in order to be able to demolish him with scholarly verbosity." They note that Genesis is unique among ancient genealogies in its historical and objective style. For instance:

"Egyptians and Phoenicians, Assyrians and Babylonians, even Indians and Persians, had a certain measure of geographical and ethnological knowledge, before more strictly scientific investigation had been begun among the classical peoples. From several of these, such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians, surveys of enumerations of the peoples known to them and attempts at maps have come down to us in the written memorials they have left behind. But not much attention was paid, as a rule, to foreigners unless national and trade interests were at stake. Often enough they were despised as mere barbarians, and in no case were they included with the more cultured nations in a higher unity.
It is otherwise in our text. Here many with whom the Israelites had no sort of actual relationship are taken into consideration." (Dillmann 314).

Scholars also note the text's remarkably neutral tone, arguing: "Had this Table been designed for propaganda purposes (to establish Israel's position as of equal dignity though not sharing some of the glories of the surrounding peoples) or had it been merely the work of some early historian creating his own data with a comparatively free hand, then almost certainly some device would have been adopted for deliberately setting forth not only the high status of his own ancestors, but the very low status of that of his enemies. With respect to the first tendency, one has only to read modern history books to discern how very easily individuals of little real significance can be presented to us in such a way as to make us take enormous pride in our heritage. There is, in fact, very little written history which is not in part propaganda, although the author himself is often unaware of it. The number of "firsts" claimed by some national historians for their countrymen is quite amazing, and it is usually clear what the nationality of the author himself is. In complete contrast, it would be difficult to prove with certainty of what nationality the author of Genesis 10 was. We assume he was a Hebrew, but if the amount of attention given to any particular line that is traced were used as a clue to his identity, he might have been a Japhethite, a Canaanite, or even an Arab." (Custance, Ch. 1)

The issue of the purpose of the historicity of the genealogies therefore remains a subject of dispute among biblical scholars

Sources

  • Hall, Jonathan, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity Cambridge U.Press, 1997.
  • Malkin, Irad, editor, Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity in series Center for Hellenic Studies Colloquia, 5. Harvard University Press, 2001. Reviewed by Margaret C. Miller in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2002
  • Driver, S. R., The Book of Genesis, Westminister Commentaries, 3rd edition, London, UK, Methuen, 1904.
  • Kautzsch, E.F.: quoted by James Orr, "The Early Narratives of Genesis," in The Fundamentals, Vol. 1, Los Angeles, CA, Biola Press, 1917.
  • Dillmann, A., Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, Vol. 1, Edinburgh, UK, T. and T. Clark, 1897, 314.
  • Custance, Arthur C., The Roots of the Nations.[1]

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generations_of_Noah&oldid=8913143"