The books of Chronicles

by W. A. L. Elmslie

5–23.
The Genealogy of the Nations.

The table which follows is taken from Genesis x. 2–29. It is geographical rather than ethnological, i.e. neighbouring nations are regarded as having the same descent. The world as then known is divided into three areas of which that in the north and west is assigned to the Sons of Japheth (5–7), the southern to the Sons of Ham, and the middle and eastern to the Sons of Shem (17–23). Had the arrangement been according to actual descent the Semitic Zidonians, for instance, would not be described as the offspring of Ham (verse 13).

The passage, when analysed, divides as follows: 5–9 (a general table of the descendants of Japheth and Ham), 10–16 (an appendix to the descendants of Ham), 17 (a general table of the descendants of Shem), 18–23 (an appendix to the descendants of Shem). Of these four sections, the general tables, verses 5–9 and 17, belong to the “Priestly” narrative of the Hexateuch, whilst the two appendices, verses 10–16, 18–23, are from the earlier narrative known as J. For a full examination of the many interesting questions raised by this account of the origin of the nations known to the Israelites the reader must be referred to the commentaries on Genesis where such discussion is appropriate (see Ryle, Genesis, in this series; or more fully Skinner, Genesis, pp. 188 ff.). Here a few remarks of a general character must suffice.

With the exception of Nimrod the names are those of nations and tribes (e.g. Madai [Medes], Javan [Greeks]) or countries (e.g. Mizraim [Egypt]) or cities (Zidon). The names are eponymous: that is to say “each nation is represented by an imaginary personage bearing its name, who is called into existence for the purpose of expressing its unity, but is at the same time conceived as its real progenitor”; and the relations existing or supposed to exist between the various races and ethnic groups are then set forth under the scheme of a family relationship between the eponymous ancestors. This procedure may seem strange to us but it was both natural and convenient for a period when men had not at their disposal our scientific methods of classification. It must have been specially easy for Semites, like Israel, who in everyday life were accustomed to call a population the “sons of” the district or town which they inhabited. But in truth the practice was widespread in antiquity, and, if a parallel is desired, an excellent one may be found in the Greek traditions respecting the origins of the several branches of the Hellenic race. Whether the ancients believed that these eponymous ancestors really had lived is somewhat uncertain. Probably they did, although such names as Rodanim (verse 7) and Ludim (verse 11) where the name is actually left in a plural form (as we might say “Londoners”) makes it difficult to doubt that in some cases the convention was conscious and deliberate. The notion that the chief nations of antiquity were differentiated from one another within some three generations of descent from a common ancestor, Noah, is plainly inaccurate. Equally untenable is the primary conception assumed in this table that the great races of mankind have come into being simply through the expansion and subdivision of single families.

It must not be imagined that these facts in any way destroy the value of the table. Historically, it is a document of great importance as a systematic record of the racial and geographical beliefs of the Hebrews. Its value would be increased could we determine precisely the period when it was originally drawn up, but unfortunately it is not possible to do so with certainty. Arguments based on the resemblance between this table and the nations mentioned in the books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are inconclusive; nor does the fact that the general tables (verses 5–9, 17) now form part of P, the “Priestly” document, help us greatly, for we cannot argue from the date of the document as a whole to the date of its component laws or traditions, which of course may be much earlier. Religiously, the worth of this table is to be seen in the conviction of the fundamental unity of the human race, which is here expressed. The significance of this may best be felt if we contrast the Greek traditions which display a keen interest in the origins of their own peoples but none at all in that of the barbarians. Ancient society in general was vitiated by failure to recognise the moral obligation involved in our common humanity. Even Israel did not wholly transcend this danger, and its sense of spiritual pre-eminence may have taken an unworthy form in Jewish particularism; but at least, as we here see, there lay beneath the surface the instinct that ultimately the families of the earth are one, and their God one.

5–7 (= Genesis x. 2–4).
The Sons of Japheth.

⁵The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.

5. The sons of Japheth] The writer begins with the northern peoples.

Gomer] to be identified with the Gimirrai of the Assyrian monuments, the Κιμμέριοι of the Greeks, who migrated from South Russia into Asia Minor (Pontus and Cappadocia) under the pressure of the Scythians (Herodotus I. 103; IV. 11, 12; compare Ezekiel xxxviii. 6, Revised Version).

Magog] In Ezekiel xxxviii. 2 (Revised Version) judgement is denounced on “Gog, of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” who is represented as accompanied in his migration by the “hordes” of Gomer and Togarmah (verse 6), “all of them riding upon horses” (verse 15). Magog represents therefore one of several tribes of northern nomads, possibly the Scythians.