Genesis10-11

2014-01-29
By fbmenadmin
Posted in Bible Discussion

Genesis 10 and 11

From Noah’s son “Shem”, the chosen line is: Shem — Peleg — Abram (Gen.11:10-26)

Shem was the oldest son, than Japheth and Ham as the youngest.

Israel’s traditional enemies (e.g. Canaanites, Assyrians, and Egyptians) all came from Noah and were benefactors of the promissory blessing. However Genesis shows how this blessing is realized only through Israel. Only through God’s revelation of himself to Israel would the world of nations have access to salvation through ‘the promise’. For the future will be the unified family of mankind that rested upon Abraham as he would become the father of nations. We might say: “God’s elect line”.

The blessings and curse given by Noah to his sons foreshadow the relationship of the nations. Due to Ham’s disregard for Noah’s privacy or really lack of respect for the patriarch of the family, he was cursed to be an outcast from this brothers.

Shem and Japheth would coexist together, whereas Ham would be trodden by his brothers. Cursed by Canaan – the lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.

What was Ham’s sin? Quoting NAC: “Ham’s reproach was not in seeing his father unclothed, though this was a shameful thing (cp. Hab 2:15), but in his outspoken delight at his father’s disgraceful condition.”
The crime was viewed as contempt for God’s hierarchical order in creation. Sham & Japheth, unlike Hamm, treated Noah with proper respect by refusing to take advantage of him despite his vulnerable condition.

The peaceful coexistence between their offspring occurred throughout time but also perhaps because of distance as the Japhethites were in the far north and west. Israel’s history had little contact with these people.

The account of Noah’s sons is reported by the use of genealogy rather than as a narrative.

1. The Japhethites primarily associated with northern and western sites (Asia Minor and Europe) –

2. the Hamites with Egypt, Mesopotamia and some in Arabia – whereas

3. the Shemites with the areas of northern Mesopotamia, Syria, and Arabia.

Cush in Africa and a descendant of Ham and the father of Nimrod who was the ancestor of the great Mesopotamian cities of Babylon and Nineveh. Nimrod was noted for his aggressive force of holding a group of people rather than a gradual diffusion of people. The Bible speaks of him as a warrior and hunter.

The line of Japheth….

Figure #1

Gomer – inhabitants of the area north of the Black Sea (Southern Russia/Ukraine)

Javan branch – the Ionian Greeks (Southern Greece and western Asia Minor.

Tarshish, the SE Asia Minor – Spain – West of Israel…

In order for you to read and study this line I’m enclosing a section from ‘the New American Commentary’ on Genesis 10 and credited to: Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, pp. 440–443). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

10:2 After Japheth himself the first tier of descendants in Japheth’s group consists of seven names. Gomer probably refers to the Cimmerians, also known from Assyrian and Greek texts, who originally inhabited the area north of the Black Sea (southern Russia/Ukraine). In the late second millennium b.c. they were pushed into the Caucasus mountains and beyond by invading Scythians. “Gomer” also occurs in Ezekiel’s (38:1–6) description of Israel’s northern enemies, along with “Gog” and “Magog,” and is related to the armies of “Beth Togarmah”—the name of Gomer’s son (10:3). Magog, because of its geographical depiction in Ezekiel (38:2; 39:6), has been assigned to the regions of the far north (cf. Rev 20:8). Yet it is also associated with the peoples of Asia Minor, such as Tubal and Meshech, in the table. Madai, a common term in the Old Testament, refers to the Medes, who inhabited the region northeast of the Tigris River (modern northwest Iran). “Javan” refers to Ionian Greeks who settled southern Greece and western Asia Minor. The name occurs with Tubal and Meshech in the prophets (Isa 66:19; Ezek 27:13). “Tubal” and “Meshech” usually occur in tandem in the Old Testament (e.g., Ezek 27:13; 32:26; 38:2; 39:1). They inhabited central and eastern Asia Minor. “Tubal” is associated with Akkadian Tabali, and “Meshech” is commonly identified with the Muški or Mušku named in Assyrian texts. According to 1 Chr 1:17 and the LXX version at 10:23, “Meshech” also occurs in the Shemite lineage, but the Hebrew is maš (“Mash”) at 10:23. If “Meshech” is read in 10:23 (as NIV), its appearance in both families probably reflects an intermingling of two different peoples. Tiras is mentioned only here and is unknown. Some have related it to ancient Thrace.

10:3 The second tier of Japhethites, the sons of Gomer, consists of three peoples. The descendants of Ashkenaz (= Akk. Ishkuza) are usually identified with the “Scythians” (= Gk. Skythēs), as they were known by Herodotus. The term occurs in Jer 51:27, where it is associated with northern sites. The Scythians were tribes from the Russian steppes that occupied areas north and east of the Black Sea. Riphath (= “Diphath” in 1 Chr 1:6) remains unidentified. Last, Togarmah is known from Ezekiel as “Beth Togarmah” (27:14; 38:6), where it is associated with sites in the far north and also Asia Minor (e.g., Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Gomer). On the basis of Hittite and Assyrian texts, some have identified the location as modern Gurun in Asia Minor.

10:4 The parallel tier of descendants, the sons of Javan, possesses four names in two pairs. Javan and his sons are Mediterranean peoples. The first pair refers to place names, and the last two names are in the plural form referring to peoples. Elishah is also mentioned in Ezekiel (27:7) and probably refers to Cyprus (known as Alashia in Akk. sources).

The identity of Tarshish is problematic, although it occurs often in the Old Testament. Its etymology has been related to Akkadian rašāšu, meaning “to heat, smelt,” but this is uncertain. Tarshish is best known in connection with its maritime activities, “the ships of Tarshish” (e.g., 1 Kgs 10:22 and NIV note). Also various metals were exported from Tarshish (e.g., Ezek 27:12). Biblical references suggest that the ships of Tarshish operated in both the Red Sea at Ezion Geber and the Mediterranean (e.g., 2 Chr 20:36–37; Ezek 27:35). Among the sites advocated for Tarshish are Tarsus in southeast Asia Minor, Tartessus in southwest Spain, and Tharros in Sardinia of Asia Minor—all west of Israel. The westward direction of Jonah’s flight (1:3; 4:2) and the association of the site with “islands” (10:5), usually identified as Mediterranean ports, would suggest a western site. Yet the association of Tarshish with other places, such as Arabia (e.g., Ps 72:10; Ezek 38:13), recommends that “Tarshish” may describe a particular activity (such as smelting) rather than a locale. This would explain how “Tarshish” could speak of different sites.

The Kittim are the people of Greek “Kition,” which is on the island of Cyprus. “Kittim” is used often in the Old Testament for the western extremities of the world and is associated with maritime activities (e.g., Num 24:24; Isa 23:1, 12; Jer 2:10; Ezek 27:6). Its companion term in the table, if it is read as Rodanim with 1 Chronicles (1:7) and the LXX (Rhodioi), is taken as a reference to the Greek isle of Rhodes, southwest of Asia minor, thus placing both peoples in the region of the Aegean as we would expect. If the MT’s Dodanim is retained, its identity remains uncertain.

10:5 Japheth’s colophon indicates that “from these” came the “maritime peoples” who “spread out,” settling the coastal regions and isles of the Mediterranean. The antecedent of “these,” whether the Mediterranean “sons of Javan” in v. 4 or all the sons of Japheth, amounts to attributing the inhabitants of the Mediterranean ultimately to Japhethite stock. “From these” may refer to the whole Japhethite group, including those of Asia Minor and the far north, since ʾî (commonly rendered “isle”) can point to territories reached by sea, not just isles (e.g., Isa 23:2, 6; Jer 25:22).

This refrain is echoed in v. 32, where as a closing colophon for the whole table it indicates that the dissemination (“spread out,” pārad) of all nations came from those cataloged. The table and tower pericope uses several terms to emphasize its theme of dispersal. The term pārad, meaning “divide,” anticipates the divine action taken against the Babel builders. Significantly, the term also occurs in the Song of Moses (“when he divided all mankind,” Deut 32:8), which shows the intended linkage between the sovereign pattern for the nations (seventy in number) and the descendants of Israel (seventy sons of Jacob; cf. 46:27; Exod 1:5; Deut 10:22).^{^[1]}

Figure #2

This group had a significant impact on the history of the Israelites. They were the traditional enemies of Abraham’s descendants. Such as: Egypt, Canaan, Assyria, and Babylon.

Cush = African, Egypt

Sheba – The Sheba Queen visited King Solomon

Nimrod – Mesopotamia

Mizriam – Egypt and Put – Libya west of Egypt

Anamites – Libyan desert, Lehabites – West of Egypt, Naphtuhites – Delta Regon, Pathrusites – Upper Egypt and Casluhites & Caphtories – Philistines

Canaan – the land that Abraham was given – The land where Esau’s wife was from and of Hittites

Hittites – Modern Turkey

Amorites – a friend of Abraham

Hivites – from group that raped Dinah

Hamathites – the northern marker for the realm of Solomon.

10:6 The first tier of Ham’s lineage consists of four offspring. Cush is Africa’s Nubia (the LXX’s “Ethiopia,”⁵⁶ not modern Ethiopia), located south of Egypt. Both Hebrew and Akkadian names for Cush are derived from the Egyptian Kš (“Kush”), which originally referred to the region between the second and third cataracts of the Nile and which later among the Egyptians became a term for general Nubia, a practice followed by the Hebrews and others. “Cush” often occurs elsewhere in the Old Testament (e.g., Isa 37:9; Jer 13:23 [NIV note]) and appears in the garden description (2:13). Some have posited that the term “Cush” in the Old Testament also can refer to two other countries, a Kassite “Cush” and an Arabian “Cush.” This remains disputed (see 10:8 discussion).

The NIV’s Mizraim is a transliteration of the Hebrew word for “Egypt.” It is a dual form, meaning “two Egypts,” in reference to Upper and Lower Egypt. It is later remembered as the “tents of Ham” (e.g., Ps 78:51). Put is disputed, although the LXX usually translates it as “Libya,”⁵⁹ which is west of Egypt on the northern coast. Others have recommended Egypt’s “Punt” (modern Somalia) south of Ethiopia because Nah 3:9 distinguishes Put from the Libyans (Lubim). Libya is preferred on linguistic grounds and because of the geographical progression in our verse from south to north in the listing of Ham’s offspring. The term occurs among the prophets and is associated with “Cush” (Jer 46:9; Ezek 30:5; 38:5) and with “Tyre” (Ezek 27:10).

Canaan is critical to understanding the table as 9:24 shows. It occupies the author’s attention, as its lengthy space in the Hamite lineage (vv. 15–18) and its territorial elaboration indicate (v. 19). The term “Canaan” has a complex history of use in and outside the Bible. It exhibits a fluidity in usage, varying between geographical locations and peoples. Its etymological history remains ambiguous as well. As a geographical reference it speaks generally of the strip of land that lies west of the Jordan River (modern Israel) and includes modern Lebanon and portions of Syria. By associating the name with Egypt, the table reflects an early period when the “land of Canaan” was subject to Egyptian control. “Canaanite” occurs in a cuneiform text from Mari (eighteenth century), and the name “Canaan” appears in Egyptian and Mesopotamian texts in the fifteenth century and is often cited as an administrative district governed by Egypt during the Amarna period (fourteenth century). The boundaries of Canaan reported in v. 19 (see discussion) are especially significant for later Israel since it is the “land of Canaan” that is the inheritance of Abraham (e.g., 15:18–21; 17:8).

At times in the biblical record, as is found among external sources as well, “Canaan” was used specifically of a people. At other places the term overlaps with many diverse peoples who inhabited Syro.-Palestine. Canaan, for example, refers to the peoples inhabiting the plains and the Jordan Valley (e.g., Num 13:29; Deut 1:7; Josh 11:3). And it may also specifically distinguish them from their immediate neighbors (e.g., 15:21; 34:30; Exod 3:17). On the other hand, “Canaan” can refer to a variety of peoples living in proximity. This is the case of Esau’s wives, who are said to be from the “women of Canaan,” which include a Hittite, Hivite, and Ishmaelite (36:2–3). This fluidity is reflected by Ezekiel’s commentary on Israel’s beginnings, “Your ancestry and birth were in the land of the Canaanites; your father was an Amorite and your mother was a Hittite” (16:3). Canaan as a people or location also commonly fluctuates with the term “Amorites” (cf. e.g., 15:16; Josh 24:15–18; Judg 6:10; 1 Sam 7:14; Amos 2:10), though elsewhere “Amorite” can be used of specific residents of Cisjordan’s hill country and the Transjordan kings Sihon and Og (e.g., Num 13:29; 21:21; Deut 3:8; Josh 10:5). The table shows by genealogy the intermingling of the inhabitants of Syro.-Palestine (10:16). In later usage among the Greeks, “Canaan” was used of Phoenicia.

10:7 The second and third tiers of names, the sons (five, not counting Nimrod) and grandsons (two) of Cush, number seven descendants. The locations of his sons are largely unknown though clearly associated with African and Arabian locations. The identity of Seba (v. 7a) and its relationship to other tribes in the Hamitic and Shemitic families is obscure. “Seba” (sĕbāʾ) is similar in spelling to another descendant of Cush (by Raamah), “Sheba” (šĕbāʾ; v. 7b). According to Genesis 10, the tribes therefore were distinct but both descendants of Ham. Yet a second “Sheba” is later noted in the table as a descendant of Shem (v. 28). What is striking is that both the Hamitic and Semitic lines share in the names “Sheba” and “Havilah” (vv. 7, 28–29), which in turn are closely related tribal families within each line. Moreover, the duo of names “Sheba and Dedan” in the Hamitic lineage (10:7b) occur again for the grandsons of the Shemite Abraham (25:3). This means Genesis presents (1) Sheba and Dedan as sons of Raamah (10:7b), (2) Sheba as son of Joktan (10:28), and (3) Sheba and Dedan as by Jokshan (of Abraham-Keturah, 25:3).

Traditionally the Sabeans of southwest Arabia (Yemen) have been identified with Sheba. As we noted, some have thought that Seba and Sheba are the same tribe with the spelling “Seba,” an Ethiopic variant of the original “Sheba” pronunciation. There is ample evidence that there were migrations between southwest Arabia and Ethiopia. Yet the biblical evidence shows Seba and Sheba occur as separate peoples in Ps 72:10, indicating that they are best taken as two different groups though closely related as the table indicates. Seba is grouped with Egypt and Cush in the Old Testament (Isa 43:3; 45:14), thus probably it refers to an African people. Herodotus (vii. 70) and Josephus (Ant. 2.10.2[249]) report that Seba was believed to be the ancient capital of Ethiopia, which Cambyses had named Meroe.

Havilah is part of the garden description, though it need not be the same location intended here (see discussion at 2:11). The name also occurs in 10:29, where it designates a son of the Shemite Joktan. Both Ham’s and Shem’s “Havilahs” are related to Arabia, and therefore the genealogies may indicate the intermingling of two peoples. Later the name as a geographical designation is related to the lineage of Ishmael (25:18; cf. 1 Sam 15:7), which again reflects a possible blending of peoples.

Sabtah has been identified with ancient Shabwat, capital of Hadramaut in south Arabia. Another proposal has Sabtah as the name of the Ethiopian Pharaoh Shabaka of the late eighth century b.c. Related to this proposal the unknown Sabteca of our verse is also identified as a personal name, Pharaoh Shabataka who succeeded Shabaka. However, to achieve the first equation it is assumed that the original Hebrew was sbkh (= Sabkah), which was miscopied sbth (= Sabtah). Both Sabtah and Sabteca are best taken as unknown south Arabian sites. Raamah is commonly associated with south Arabia. It is named with Sheba in Ezek 27:22 as partners in trade with Phoenicia’s Tyre. One recommendation for its location is ancient Ragmatum, the capital of the oasis of Nagran, located in then north Yemen but southwest Saudi Arabia today.

The next tier of names, Sheba and Dedan, lists the two grandsons of Cush by Raamah (v. 7b). Both names are Arabian tribes that are known for their commercial trade (e.g., 1 Kgs 10:1–13; Ps 72:10; Ezek 27:15) and are associated together (e.g., Ezek 38:13). Sheba is best remembered because of its Sabaean queen, who visited Solomon’s courts (1 Kgs 10:1; 2 Chr 9:1). Also, as noted, the grandsons of Abraham and Keturah bear the names Sheba and Dedan (Gen 25:3; 1 Chr 1:32). These we may take as individuals who were related to Abraham but not considered descendants of the Arabian tribes. Dedan may be related to north Arabia since it appears to have a connection with Edom (Jer 49:8) and with Tema, a city in northern Arabia (cf. Gen 25:15; Job 6:19). As for the appearance of “Sheba” in both the Hamite and Shemite lines (vv. 7, 28), it is reasonable that two different peoples are intended, perhaps inhabiting the same region of southwest Arabia. Or two different locations may be in view with Hamitic “Sheba” in the north, where Dedan’s location is probable, and the “Sheba” of Shem in southwest Arabia (modern Yemen).

10:8–12 Another son of “Cush,” if we are to take this as the same “Cush” of v. 6, is Nimrod. This narrative digression recounts the career of Nimrod, since he is the founder of prominent cities that impacted the history of the Hebrews (e.g., Babylon, Nineveh). Moreover, the means by which Nimrod achieves his ascendancy suggests that his distinction came by aggressive force rather than the gradual diffusion of peoples as shown elsewhere by the table. Nimrod in that sense was typological of how ancient Near Eastern empires came into existence.

Ancestral descent is recounted for the first time in the table by the expression “Cush was the father of Nimrod.” “Was the father of” (yālad) introduces three such sections in this Hamite genealogy (cf. vv. 13, 15; on the use of this term see earlier discussion). The identity of “Cush” has been disputed since it is difficult to reconcile how the Semitic kingdoms, such as Babylon and Akkad (via Nimrod), could be attributed to the Hamites. As mentioned earlier, some have argued that the “Cush” of this passage is not the Hamite “Cush” (vv. 6–7) but is the ancestor of the Kassites (Cossaeans), perhaps an Indo-Aryan tribe that supplanted the Babylonians in the northeast region of Mesopotamia in the sixteenth century b.c. Since there is no indication in the text to take “Cush” differently from the same name of the immediate verses, it is best to interpret Nimrod’s father as the Hamitic Cush. A better resolution lies in the observation that the predecessors of the Semite kingdoms of Mesopotamia were non-Semitic, which is consistent with the table’s depiction.

(I took out several paragraphs that was a discussion about Nimrod as it doesn’t fit the purpose of this paper.) – the quote continues:

10:13–14 The second occurrence of yālad (“was the father of”; cf. vv. 8 and 15) introduces the offspring of Mizraim (Egypt). This tier of names, consisting of seven offspring if “Philistines” is parenthetical, parallels the tier of Cush’s sons (v. 7). These names are in the Hebrew plural (-ʾîm), referring to people groups. The first named are the Ludites, who have been commonly identified as the Lydians in western Asia Minor, although this is uncertain. The name “Lud” in the singular occurs in the Shemite lineage (10:22). Two different peoples are most likely intended. The Ludites of the Mizraim line formed one group and are mentioned in association with African peoples in the prophets (Jer 46:9; Ezek 30:5). The second group is of the Shemite lineage, noted with peoples from Asia Minor (Isa 66:19).

Anamites, the second people listed, remain unknown, though some suggestions have been made, including (1) Egyptian knmt in the Libyan desert (by reading the LXX enemetiem = knmtym) and (2) mrywtʾy, as in Tg. Ps.-J., which refers to a site west of Alexandria.⁸⁷ The third group is the Lehabites, who are commonly identified with the “Lubim,” referring to the Lybians as in the LXX rendering (Labiim). The Lybians resided west of Egypt (e.g., Dan 11:43; Nah 3:9). Fourth, the identification of the Naphtuhites is also unresolved, though their association with the Lehabites (= Lybians) and the Pathrusites (Upper Egypt) would argue for placing the Naphtuhites in Egypt, perhaps the Delta region. Various possible Egyptian etymologies for “Naphtuhites” recommend the site in Lower Egypt (i.e., northern delta) or perhaps near Memphis in Middle Egypt.

Pathrusites (v. 14) are the people of Pathros (Upper Egypt, i.e., the southern region), which is regularly connected with Egypt by the prophets (Isa 11:11; Jer 44:1, 15; Ezek 29:14; 30:14). The sixth and seventh peoples, the Casluhites and Caphtorites, must be treated together since our understanding of these peoples is related to the phrase “from whom the Philistines came” (v. 14). We do not know the location of the Casluhites, but there is wide agreement that Caphtor is the Aegean isle Crete. The association of Cretan culture with Egypt has long been established. Amos 9:7 and Jer 47:4, as well as extrabiblical sources, indicate that the Philistines were from Caphtor (Crete). In the table, however, the origins of the Philistines are attributed to the unknown Casluhites. Commonly, interpreters emend the reading of the text by taking the last clause with “Caphtorites” rather than Casluhites, thereby resolving the apparent tension between the sources. Alternatively, the addendum “Philistines,” as it stands, is recognized as a necessary explanation of Philistine origins that was based on an authentic early memory, namely, that the Philistines originally descended from the Casluhites.

To complicate the problem is the troublesome issue of early references in the patriarchal narratives to the “Philistines” (21:32, 34; 26:1, 8, 14–18), whose presence in Canaan would antedate by centuries the arrival of the Philistines as indicated by Egyptian sources (ca. 1300–1200 b.c.). The “Philistines” are not known from extrabiblical sources by name (prst) until the early twelfth century b.c. during the reign of Rameses III (1198–1166 b.c.). They were part of the Mediterranean peoples, known from Egyptian sources as the “Sea Peoples,” who invaded Syria, Palestine, and Egypt during the latter half of the thirteenth century. They were successfully repelled by Rameses and settled along the Mediterranean coast in southwestern Canaan. The association then of the Philistines with Caphtor (= Crete) as reflected by Amos and Jeremiah (cf. Ezek 25:16), it is widely thought, refers to the migration of the Sea Peoples. Generally, commentators have explained the early appearance of the Philistines in the patriarchal accounts as anachronistic. Others, as we will see next, argue that there are two migrations in view, an earlier group that Abraham and Isaac encountered in Canaan and a subsequent migration among the Sea Peoples (ca. 1200 b.c.).

How can Genesis 10 be squared with biblical and Egyptian sources that attribute Philistine origins to the Aegean Caphtorim? One answer observes that according to Amos 9:7 Israel came from Egypt, though the people did not originally have their source there; likewise the “Philistines” came from Caphtor, though originally they were of the Casluhites (as 10:14). In this opinion the term “Philistine” had reference to an early settlement of Caphtorites in southern Canaan (as Deut 2:23 illustrates) whom the patriarchs knew. “Philistine” was an elastic term and could refer to a number of Aegean groups that migrated to Canaan, including those cited in Egyptian sources. This would accommodate the use of “Philistine” in both passages.

Another explanation points to evidence of Egyptian migration into southern Canaan in the early third millennium (3000–2800 b.c.). Some contend that among the migrants were the Casluhim, later known as “Philistines,” who settled near Beersheba. These were the “Philistines” of the early period known to the patriarchs (e.g., Gen 20:2; 26:1; Exod 13:17; 23:31; Josh 13:3). Later the invasions of the Sea Peoples included the Caphtorites, who adopted the name “Philistines.” This later migration is the subject of the prophets (Amos 9:7; Jer 47:4; cf. Deut 2:23). Thus two different but once-related peoples migrated to Canaan at separate times. Another recent proposal has claimed the identity of the Casluhites as peoples of Lower Egypt (i.e., Delta region) who migrated to Crete before going to Canaan. It is contended, on the basis of linguistic analysis, that the Pathrusites are of Upper Egypt, the Naphtuhites of Middle Egypt, and the Casluhites therefore of Lower Egypt.⁹³ Such recommendations are reasonable and give priority to the witness of the biblical text, but none can be confirmed until more is learned about the obscure Casluhites.

10:15–19 The third elaboration in the table, introduced again by the use of yālad (also vv. 8, 13), is the description of Canaan’s descendants. Of Ham’s four sons there is no tracing of the lineage of Put. Eleven groups descended from Canaan, by far the majority among the Hamite clans. They make up the tier of names corresponding to the five sons of Cush (excluding Nimrod) and the seven of Egypt. Only Joktan among the Shemite line lists more groups (thirteen; vv. 26–29). Beginning with the Jebusites, the last nine names of the Canaanite clans have the distinctive Hebrew gentilic suffix -î, designating ethnicity. The importance of Canaan for the author is shown by the detail of the passage, particularly its territorial boundaries (v. 19), and the impressive number of descendants listed.

First, Sidon is distinguished from the others as Canaan’s “firstborn” (v. 15). This ancient city was the earliest among the great urban centers of Phoenicia. This attribution “firstborn” and the absence of Tyre, which later supplanted Sidon in importance, suggests that the table reflects an early second millennium understanding of the nations. The second name is the Hittites (= ḥēt/ḥittî, Akk. ḫattû), which may be confused with the Hittites of Asia Minor (modern Turkey), that is, the Hittite Empire (ca. 1800–1200 b.c.), or the neo-Hittite kingdoms of northern Syria that survived the dissolution of the empire. The “Hittites” in Genesis 10 and elsewhere in Genesis were inhabitants of Canaan who antedated the arrival of the patriarchs and later Israel (15:20). According to Ezekiel, the city of Jerusalem owed its existence to the Amorites and Hittites (16:3; see Jebusites in the following paragraph). The Hittites during the patriarchal period resided in Judah’s territory, especially in the Hebron area. They play an important role in the life of the patriarchs. The cave of Machpelah purchased from Ephron the Hittite is the family tomb of the patriarchs (23:3ff.; 25:10; 49:29–32; 50:13), and Esau married Hittite wives (26:34; 36:2). Specific Hittites named in the Old Testament (e.g., Ephron, Zohar, and Uriah) have Semitic names, as we would expect since they are part of Canaanite culture.

The listing continues to cite Canaan’s peoples whom the later Hebrews will encounter in the land. Jebusites (v. 16) were the inhabitants of “Jebus,” that is, Jerusalem, antedating the patriarchs (15:21) and entrance of Israel into Canaan (e.g., Josh 15:8). Their ethnic origins are disputed, though most agree that they were non-Semitic, as the table shows. Some recommend that “Jebus” (Yebus) is related to Amorite Yabusum, which correlates with Ezekiel’s attribution of Jerusalem to the Amorites (16:3). The Jebusites make a significant impact on later Israel, successfully defending their citadel until the time of David (e.g., Exod 3:8; Josh 12:8; Judg 1:21; 2 Sam 5:6–9).

The fourth name is the Amorites, who are best known in the Old Testament as a member of the list of nations whose residence in Canaan preceded the patriarchs and later Israel (e.g., 15:16). Abraham enjoyed a peaceful coexistence with the Amorites, who joined him in defeating a coalition of eastern kings (14:5–7, 13). The Akkadian word amurru first referred to the “west” and later designated the peoples and kingdoms northwest of Mesopotamia. On the basis of Akkadian and Egyptian sources, it is generally thought that the “Amorites,” whose rulers bore Semitic names, migrated from the west and subjugated the old Mesopotamian cities. Among these were Babylon’s famed King Hammurapi and the people of Mari, in the early half of the second millennium. The influx of the Amorites in Canaan is disputed. It does not necessarily follow that the original Amorites, attributed to Hamite descent in Genesis 10, were a Semitic people since the term “Amorite” in ancient Near Eastern documents does not serve as a definitive source for designating ethnicity. Moreover, linguistic evidence does not always assure true ethnic derivation. In the Old Testament the name is used broadly of the land (e.g., 15:16; Deut 1:7) and is associated with the specific Transjordan kings Sihon and Og (e.g., Num 21:25, 32–34). The Amorites and Hittites were instrumental in the origins of Jerusalem (Ezek 16:3; see previous comments on “Jebusites”).

Next, Girgashites refers to another Canaanite populace the Israelites confronted (e.g., 15:21; Deut 7:1; Josh 3:10; 24:11), but little is known about them. The sixth name is the Hivites (v. 17), about whom we know little except their early occupation of Canaan and their opposition to the Israelites (e.g., Exod 3:8; Deut 7:1). Shechem, responsible for the rape of Jacob’s daughter Dinah, is identified as the “son of Hamor the Hivite” (Gen 34:2). Other “Hivites” mentioned in the Old Testament lived in Lebanon (Judg 3:3), Gibeon (Josh 9:1, 7), and near Mount Hermon (Josh 11:3; 2 Sam 24:7) as well as Transjordan (Gen 36:2). Some associate the Hivites with another obscure people, the Horites, who dwelt at Mount Seir, on the basis of Zibeon the Hivite (Gen 36:2), who is included among the Horites (36:20, 29). Also the LXX has “Horite” rather than “Hivite” in Gen 34:2 and Josh 9:7. This textual difference can be attributed to the confusion of spellings (ḥwt and ḥrt, where the Hebrew letters w and r are similar in appearance). The matter is complicated, however, by the suggestion of some that the Horites are the ancient non-Semitic Hurrians, known from extrabiblical texts, though this is seriously questioned. In short, the table shows that the Hivites were an originally non-Semitic people, and perhaps later the association of the Hivites and Horites came about as a result of migration and displacement where “Horite” came to refer to different ethnic groups.

The Arkites resided on the Lebanon coast (city Irqata), and the Sinites, though their identity is uncertain, probably were located nearby. Some have identified the Sinites with the north Phoenician city of Siyanu, which is known from Akkadian texts. The ninth name, the Arvadites, is well attested in ancient Near Eastern texts, including Ezek 27:8, 11. It is modern Ruad, located on an island off the north Phoenician coast. The home of the Zemarites is commonly mentioned in texts outside the Bible as Akkadian Simirra and in the Amarna correspondence as Sumur. It is identified by many as modern Sumra, which lies on the Mediterranean coast of Syria between Tripoli and Arvad. Finally, the Hamathites are the inhabitants of the well-known Hamath (= modern Hama), the ancient Syrian city located on the River Orontes. It marked the northernmost boundary of the land of Canaan (e.g., Num 34:8; Josh 13:5) and was the northern marker for the realm of Solomon and the state of Israel under Jeroboam II (1 Kgs 8:65; 2 Kgs 14:25–28).

From these the various families of the Canaanites “scattered” (pûṣ, v. 18b). We observed earlier (cf. v. 5) the repetition of the dispersal motif that runs throughout this section (10:1–11:9). This first use of the term pûṣ anticipates the punishment of the tower builders (11:4, 8–9). This implied association of the Canaanites and the disapproved Babelites echoes Noah’s invocation against Canaan (see 9:25 discussion). Here it prepares the reader for the geographical dimensions of the land that follow (v. 19).

The description of Canaan’s territories points to Sidon as the northernmost boundary and the southwestern perimeter toward Gerar “as far as Gaza,” which sits on the main north-south highway, connecting Egypt and the Fertile Crescent along the Mediterranean coast. The southeastern line runs through the southern region of the Dead Sea marked by the cities Sodom and Gomorrah and the lesser known Admah and Zeboiim (cf. Hos 11:8) to “as far as Lasha,” whose locale is unknown. The location of the infamous pentapolis (including Zoar) in the Dead Sea region remains a puzzle. “Lasha” occurs only once in the Old Testament and is regarded as a southern site only because of its association with the pentapolis here. The table’s description of Canaan’s land is not like the detailed assessments found elsewhere (e.g., 15:18; Num 34:2–12; Ezek 47:15–20; 48:1–28) and focuses only on the Cisjordan area. The description of Canaan’s boundaries here correspond to the Egyptian province of Canaan during the reign of Ramsses II (ca. 1280 b.c.).

Gerar, Sodom, and Gomorrah become important to the patriarchal narratives, especially Abraham’s travels. This probably explains why northern sites that were of less importance to the patriarchs are ignored by the table. “Gaza” is included probably since it was well known for its strategic place in international matters and was important to later Israel’s understanding of Canaan’s geopolitical history (e.g., Deut 2:23).

10:20 This is the second of three colophons in the table (also vv. 5, 31), differing somewhat from that of Japheth (v. 5) but sharing in the same observation that these peoples were members of the general dispersal of nations across the face of the earth.^{^[2]}

Figure #3

Genesis 10 is the introductory portion of the line of Shem – whereas Genesis 11 traces Peleg’s line and leads to father Abraham….

Ebar – because he is the ancestor of Abraham.

Elam – the mountainous region east of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley (modern southwest Iran).

Aram – the Greeks called “Syria” sometimes referred to the whole Aramean kingdoms. They settled diverse sites in Syria and Mesopotamia…

Ophir – noted for its gold

Left to the account of “Babel” to explain the dissemination of the people and that God’s impediment against the rebellious residents of Babel.

Following the quote from: Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, pp. 444–458). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

10:21 This introductory statement highlights the Shem line, which differs from the prologues of the previous two branches by its additional phrase, “[Sons] were born also to Shem.” The verb yālad occurs again (cf. vv. 8, 13, 15) but here in the passive (“were born”), as in the preamble of 10:1, yet without an expressed subject. The versions must supply the subject (NIV’s “sons”), but the ellipsis of bĕnê in the Hebrew text draws even more attention to the heading. This is clear from 4:26, where the same construction occurs with the stated subject “son” (bēn). We commented earlier that the author has used yālad in the Hamite branch to highlight particular members (Cush, Mizraim, and Canaan). Now the Shemite lineage has a preponderance of the verb, occurring five times in all, four of which appear in the short stretch of vv. 24–26. This is striking since the same verbal root is standard in the construction of the elect lines of Seth (chap. 5) and Shem (chap. 11). By appropriating the same term, our author has highlighted the line of Shem in the midst of the nonelect families named (Ham, Japheth).

Also the heading accents the descent of Shem through Eber by the description of the patriarch as “the father of all the sons of Eber.” Because he is the ancestor of Abram (11:16–26), his name receives immediate attention in the table, although Eber is a fourth-generation descendant. In the Hebrew syntax of our verse this clause takes precedence over the subsequent addendum that reports Shem’s filial relationship with Japheth (contra NIV; see NASB, NRSV). Inferred from the gentilic form of the term “Hebrew” (ʿibrî) is that Eber (ʿēber) gave his name to the patriarchs and later Israelites (e.g., 14:13; 39:14; 41:12; Exod 2:11). The etymology of “Hebrew,” however, remains disputed. “Hebrew” does not occur in the genealogies of chaps. 10 and 11. The term is seldom used in the Old Testament compared to “Israelite(s)” and occurs usually to distinguish the Hebrew people from foreigners (e.g., 43:32; Exod 2:6; 1 Sam 4:6–9). Joseph describes Canaan as the “land of the Hebrews” (40:15), and later at the burning bush God identifies himself to Moses as the “God of the Hebrews” (Exod 3:18).

In 9:24 the reference to Ham as the youngest brother leaves it to our verse to sort out who is the older between Shem and Japheth (see 9:24 discussion). Jewish tradition and some modern commentators interpret the Hebrew of 10:21 so as to make Japheth the elder brother to Shem (so NIV, AV).¹⁰⁸ Most English versions, however, interpret Shem as “Japheth’s older brother.” Thus our author has shown in yet another way that Shem has priority among the three sons, despite coming third in the table, with the actual chronological order of birth Shem, Japheth, and Ham.¹¹⁰

10:22 After Shem the first tier of names includes five descendants (v. 22). Elam is located in the mountainous region east of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley (modern southwest Iran). Its ancient capital was Susa (e.g., Esth 1:2–5; Dan 8:2). Among the coalition of eastern kings whom Abraham routed was the king of Elam (14:1, 9). Problematic for modern readers is the presence of Elam in the Shemite lineage since the language is non-Semitic. Its placement in the Shemite branch cannot be solely for cultural or geographical reasons since on this basis we would expect such Hamitic peoples as Babylon, Assyria, and Canaan under Shem, not Ham. More reasonably, it may be posited that the earliest settlers of Elam were Semites who never became the dominant group in the region. Asshur (= Akk. aššur) is located on the upper Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). Its name was appropriated for the region and inhabitants (i.e., Assyria). It also appears in the Ham lineage, where the NIV translates “Assyria” (10:11). The appearance of “Asshur” in each list probably refers to two different people groups possessing the same name. The earliest settlers of Asshur were of Sumerian culture (i.e., Hamitic), and they were supplanted by the Semitic culture that spread throughout Mesopotamia.

Arphaxad remains a mystery, though some attempt to relate it to Arrapha, modern Kirkuk in Iraq. Others relate it to Babylonia on the basis that the last three letters of Arphaxad (kšd) may refer to the Chaldeans (kaśdîm, 11:28) who inhabited the southern region of Babylonia (cf. “Kesed,” 22:22). His name also occurs in 11:10. We have mentioned already the puzzle of Lud in 10:13, where the plural form “Ludites” occurs.

The final name in this tier is the important Aram, which the Greeks called “Syria.” However, the terms Aram and Arameans are fluid, sometimes referring to the whole Aramean kingdoms (e.g., 1 Kgs 10:29) and at other times tied to specific areas and cities (e.g., Aram-Naharaim, Paddan-Aram, Aram-Zobah). The Arameans settled diverse sites in Syria and Mesopotamia during the second millennium. The table’s early association of Aram with Mesopotamian areas (Assyria and Elam) is also indicated by the later prophet Amos (9:7), who attributes their origins to Kir, perhaps located in Elam or Assyria (cf. Isa 22:6). The notion of a proto-Aramean settlement in Mesopotamia has been recommended but cannot be confirmed.

Aram plays an important role in the patriarchal narratives where family connections with Aramean stock in the district of Haran are maintained (e.g., 11:28–32; 25:20; 28:5; 31:18, 20–24). This explains the identification of Jacob as a “wandering Aramean” in Deut 26:5. The name “Aram” also occurs in the genealogy of Nahor, brother of Abraham (22:21). Moreover, “Uz,” which follows Aram in Genesis 10, is the same name in chap. 22 listed as Aram’s uncle. Since the genealogies are vastly different in form and function, it is best to view each “Aram” as a different entity. The “Aram” of the table refers to an eastern ancestor whose name was given to the Arameans. This is supported by Amos 9:7, which places Aram as a Shemite neighbor of Elam. In the patriarchal narratives Aram refers to an individual named after his Aramean heritage.

10:23 Of the five sons of Shem, only the offspring of Arphaxad and Aram are given. The inclusion of Aram with his descendants probably is because of the Arameans’ importance in the history of the Hebrews. In this second tier of names there are four descendants of Aram (v. 23). Uz, probably head of an Aramean tribe, has already been mentioned in his connection with Aram in the genealogy of Nahor, Abraham’s brother (22:21). Here the name refers to an Aramean tribe. Uz is best known as the home of Job (1:1), situated in the “east” (1:3), perhaps Edom or in the Arabian desert (cf. 1:15, 17, 19; 2:11; 32:2 w/Jer 25:21, 24). The Edomite Uz appears as the son of a Horite chieftain dwelling at Seir (36:28–29), and Uz and Edom are depicted as interdependent (Lam 4:21; cf. also Jer 25:20–21). Most likely Job’s “Uz” is not the same since the Arameans were located in Syria and northern Mesopotamia. Hul and Gether are unidentified. “Meshech,” as it is rendered in the NIV, appears to duplicate the Meshech of the Japhethite lineage (see 10:2 discussion). Yet the Hebrew text at 10:23 reads “Mash” (maš) and may well refer to another people. Its identity remains undetermined. Possibilities are “Masa,” located in central Asia Minor and known from Hittite texts, the mountains of Lebanon, which are called mâšu in the Gilgamesh Epic, or Mount Masius of northern Mesopotamia.

10:24 As noted earlier, the line of descent through Arphaxad is another elaboration in the table, indicated at each place by the use of yālad (v. 24; cf. vv. 8, 13, 15). This tier parallels the four sons of Aram but consists of one name only, Shelah, who is the son of Arphaxad and father of Eber (cf. 11:12–15). The identity of Shelah is uncertain, but the name occurs again among the families of Judah (38:5, 11, 14, 26; 46:12; Num 26:20; 1 Chr 2:3; 4:21–23).

10:25 Eber is said to father two sons, Peleg and Joktan (v. 25). While Joktan occupies the genealogical attention of our author, tracing thirteen descendants (vv. 26–29), it is Peleg’s mention that elicits the etymological comment “because in his time the earth was divided” (v. 25). The play between the name “Peleg” (peleg) and “divided” (niplĕgâ) is created by their homonymity, both of which have the letters p–l–g. This explication on the name “Peleg” ties the genealogy to a specific event known to the original readers. The problem for us is the identity of the event to which the table alludes.

The verb “divide” occurs only twice more, though its related noun “channel” or “stream” is well attested (e.g., Ps 1:3); it is used of digging a channel for rainwater (Job 38:25) and the “confounding” of language (Ps 55:9 [10]). Supported by this latter passage, the traditional opinion has been to take it as a reference to the tower episode, where the “scattering” (vv. 5, 8–9) of the Babelites is the result of God’s “confusing their language” (v. 7). This is the more likely viewpoint, but this linkage cannot be dogmatically held since there is no clear allusion to 11:1–9 because “scattered” (pûṣ) and “divided” (niplĕgâ) are different words. Other possibilities have been proposed. “Earth” can be rendered as “land,” in which case it could indicate an earthquake or a significant water works development for agricultural irrigation. If we take “land” as a metonymy for “people,” it can be taken as a political schism. If the traditional opinion is declined, more attractive is the “division” of the “land” (i.e., people) as a reference to the split between the two families of Eber, the Pelegites and the Joktanites.

A geographical identification for “Peleg” is unknown, but the name is clearly intended as an individual in chap. 11. “Joktan” on the face of it can be related to the word for “small” or “young” (qāṭān), perhaps suggesting “younger brother,” but there is no attempt in the text to derive a play with the appellative as it does with “Peleg.” As for Joktan, no location can be ascertained except for the general region of Arabia as recommended by the subsequent descendants, which can be pinpointed as Arabian sites and tribes.

10:26–29 This final tier of names dominates the Shemite group, consisting of half (thirteen) of the total names cataloged under Shem. Those that can be identified are in the south Arabian peninsula. Almodad is unknown. If the LXX’s rendering elmōdad is followed, Almodad may be related to Hebrew dôd or mōdad (“beloved”), thus meaning “God [El] is a friend.” If Arabic ʾāl, meaning “clan” or “family,” is taken as the first part of the name, the second part may refer to a specific tribe, mawdad. A proposal for a South Yemen location has been made. Sheleph has been related to Yemenite tribes on the basis of its association with Hazarmaveth, that is, modern Hadramaut in southwest Arabia, east of Yemen. Jerah’s location is unknown, but it probably refers to another tribe in the south Arabian peninsula. Some relate it to Warah in Yemen. In Hebrew and South Arabic, yeraḥ means “month” and is closely related to the word for “moon” (yārēaḥ), which was the primary deity of the south Arabian pantheon.

Hadoram also remains a mystery (v. 27). Literally it means “Had[ad] is exalted,” referring to the storm deity of Mesopotamia (and Baal of Ugarit). The name occurs later for the son of Tou, king of Hamath (1 Chr 18:10) and Solomon’s overseer (= “Adoram,” 1 Kgs 12:18; “Adoniram,” 2 Chr 10:18). Some associate it with the modern site Dauram in Yemen. Uzal has been identified with modern Sanaa, capital of Yemen, though this has been brought into serious dispute. It appears also in Ezek 27:19, but there it probably refers to a northern Syria location. Its identity is unsolved. “Diklah” (Heb. diqlâ) is thought to be an oasis in south Arabia but only because of its name, which is related to deqel, meaning “date palm.”

Obal also is unknown (v. 28; “Ebal,” 1 Chr 1:22), although some have suggested modern Ubal or other Yemenite highland locations. The name is absent in the LXX at 10:23, which means twelve sons are listed. “Abimael,” meaning “my father is truly God,”¹²⁹ remains unidentified. One proposal has Abimael in the region of the ancient town Haram in the Yemenite Jawf. Sheba has already been discussed at v. 7, where the name occurs in the Hamite lineage.

Ophir (v. 29) is best known in the Old Testament as a distant land noted for its gold (e.g., 1 Kgs 9:28; 10:11; 1 Chr 29:4; Job 22:24; Ps 45:9 [10]). Recommendations for its location have varied from Africa to India. If the Joktanite name refers to the same “Ophir,” it may be in southwest Arabia, as the other names of the Joktanite line have indicated. Another name already mentioned is Havilah (see v. 7). The final name of the Shemite branch is Jobab, which was the name of an Edomite king (36:33–34) as well as other individuals (e.g., Josh 11:1; 1 Chr 8:9, 18). Some have proposed various Arabian connections, such as the Sabean tribe Yuhaybab, but the identification eludes us.

10:30 As in the case with the Canaanites (v. 19), a summary of the Joktanite territory follows the naming of the Arabian tribes. This supplementary detail serves as another indication of the importance attributed to the Shemite line by the author. The Joktanite branch deserved special distinction as a descendant of the Hebrew ancestor “Eber” (v. 25). The particular boundary sites of Mesha and Sephar are a dilemma, though possibly the further depiction “in the eastern hill country” suggests that the perimeters are given in terms of the east-west boundaries of the Arabian locale. Mesha has been associated with north Arabia, perhaps a branch of the Ishmaelites (= “Massa,” 25:14), though most of the Joktanite names are in the southwest. On this basis too it has been ventured that Sephar is located in south Arabia. The identity of Mesha and Sephar remains an enigma.

10:31 We have already discussed the importance of this concluding colophon for the Shemite line in the table (see vv. 5, 20).^{^[3]}

Chapter 11 covers the line of Shem leading to Abraham…

Genesis 10 is the introductory portion of the line of Shem – whereas Genesis 11 traces Peleg’s line and leads to father Abraham….

Ebar – because he is the ancestor of Abraham.

Elam – the mountainous region east of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley (modern southwest Iran).

Aram – the Greeks called “Syria” sometimes referred to the whole Aramean kingdoms. They settled diverse sites in Syria and Mesopotamia…

Ophir – noted for its gold

Shem is the chosen recipient of Noah’s invocation for blessing – His recognition is shown by the two complementary genealogies in chapters 10 and 11. (Note the 1^st line with Joktan’s line extended and the above with the Peleg (15^th) line shown…

Peleg is 15^th from Adam and Abram is 20^th….

Eber (14^th) is the father of Peleg (the elect) and Joktan the non elect and branch from Eber to form the two.

Joktan line is followed by the Babel failure, while inner branches of the Shemite family – one leading to disgrace and the other to grace.

The postdiluvian world begins with Noah and ends with Terah. Abraham (Abram) starts the patriarchal period.

When Shem was 100 he became the father of “Arphaxad” – lived 500 years more after Arphaxad or 600 years.

Life spans greatly changed after Arphaxad who lived 438 – (Shem lived 600) – Peleg lived 239 where Eber lived 464. Shem’s life span would actually exceed the death of Abraham by 35 years. (Abraham died at 175)

Shem’s Sons – Genesis 11:12-22

Genesis 11:22-26(ESV)
²²When Serug had lived 30 years, he fathered Nahor.
²³And Serug lived after he fathered Nahor 200 years and had other sons and daughters.
²⁴When Nahor had lived 29 years, he fathered Terah.
²⁵And Nahor lived after he fathered Terah 119 years and had other sons and daughters.
²⁶When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Sergu fathered Nahor – Nahor at 29 fathered Terah and other sons and daughters… Nahor and Haran

Terah becomes the patriarch of the Abraham clan…. V.26– At 70 Terah becomes father to Abram, Nahor and Haran….

Abraham’s brothers: (Nahor and Haran)

Nahor – 12 sons

Haran – son: Lot and Daughter: Milcah (Haran dies before the family departed Ur. Lot migrates with Terah and later accompanied Abraham in his travels to Canaan.

Genesis 11:27-30(ESV)
²⁷Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot.
²⁸Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur of the Chaldeans.
²⁹And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah.
³⁰Now Sarai was barren; she had no child.

Milcah (Haran’s daughter) marries Abraham’s brother Nahor. They had 8 sons – one was Bethuel. Nahor’s concubine Reumah bore 4 sons of Nahor.

Bethuel fathered Laban (fathered Leah and Rachel – Jacob) and daughter Rebekah (wife of Isaac)

Sarai was Abram’s half-sister of the same father (Terah) but a different mother.

Genesis 11:31-32(ESV)
³¹Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there.
³²The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran.

Here we see Abram’s faithful answer to the call to go to Canaan. Abram leaves the family and enters into God’s promise.

Lot’s incestuous relations with his daughters that birthed the Ammonites and Moabites. With the union of Boaz and Ruth the Moabite, the schism between the Abram and Lot families is repaired.

Abraham lived another 15 years after the birth of Esau and Jacob by his son Isaac.

Abraham’s move to Canaan reflects real time or is Proleptic (- the describing of an event as taking place before it could have done so, the treating of a future event as if it had already happened.)

I extrapolated the above information from the following. I’m enclosing the material from the New American Commentary below if you want to read it yourself. Maybe I did it wrong. Or left out key points that would be of interest to you.

Following is the quote from: Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, pp. 444–458). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

2. Shem’s Sons (11:12–26)

Including “Shem,” the list gives the names of nine generations, whereas Genesis 5 presents ten generations from Adam to Noah. The LXX compensates for this by the additional name “Kainan” between Arphaxad and Shelah, but this is clearly secondary.²³ More likely the absence of the tenth generation points the reader to “Abram,” who follows Terah as the anticipated “tenth” member. By accomplishing the configuration of “ten,” the birth of Abraham indicates a completed line of descent, reaching from the flood down to the call of the patriarch. Whereas the Shemite line in the Table of Nations gave special attention to such notable figures as Eber and Peleg (10:21, 25), this second genealogy does not. Moreover, whereas the Sethite genealogy paused to comment on the career of Enoch (5:24) and the naming of Noah (5:29), there is no such diversion in 11:10–26. There is no interruption in this compacted line from Shem to Terah.

(1) Arphaxad Through Eber (11:12–17)

¹²When Arphaxad had lived 35 years, he became the father of Shelah. ¹³And after he became the father of Shelah, Arphaxad lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

¹⁴When Shelah had lived 30 years, he became the father of Eber. ¹⁵And after he became the father of Eber, Shelah lived 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

¹⁶When Eber had lived 34 years, he became the father of Peleg. ¹⁷And after he became the father of Peleg, Eber lived 430 years and had other sons and daughters.

11:12–13 In the first listing of the Shemite line (10:21–31), “Arphaxad” was treated as the name of a place or tribe (see 10:22). Here the genealogy encourages the reader to view the names also as persons, since individuals such as Terah are included. This points up the fluidity of the names among the genealogies of chaps. 10 and 11. An individual and/or the tribe that is derived from that individual can be represented by the one name of the progenitor. In chap. 10 Arphaxad is the third of five sons named (10:22), but here he takes the role of prominence. This shows that either chap. 10 or 11 (or both) has not listed the descendants in the order of the firstborn. This we found true of Ham, who regularly occupies the second position though identified as the youngest (9:24). As here, there is but one descendant named in chap. 10 from Arphaxad, that is, Shelah (10:24).

11:14–17 “Shelah” (v. 14) is a common name among the families of Judah (38:5, 11, 14, 26; 46:12; Num 26:20; 1 Chr 2:3; 4:21–23), but there is no site associated with the name, and as a place it remains uncertain. “Eber” (v. 16) strikingly is named without fanfare, although he is the ancestor of the “Hebrews.” He has a prominent mention in the Table of Nations (10:21, 25) and occupies a significant place as fourteenth from Adam.

(2) Peleg Through Nahor (11:18–25)

¹⁸When Peleg had lived 30 years, he became the father of Reu. ¹⁹And after he became the father of Reu, Peleg lived 209 years and had other sons and daughters.

²⁰When Reu had lived 32 years, he became the father of Serug. ²¹And after he became the father of Serug, Reu lived 207 years and had other sons and daughters.

²²When Serug had lived 30 years, he became the father of Nahor. ²³And after he became the father of Nahor, Serug lived 200 years and had other sons and daughters.

²⁴When Nahor had lived 29 years, he became the father of Terah. ²⁵And after he became the father of Terah, Nahor lived 119 years and had other sons and daughters.

11:18–19 With “Peleg” comes the departure point between the two branches of Shem in chaps. 10 and 11. Here the genealogy traces the family of Peleg rather than his brother Joktan (10:25–26). Joktan was the father of Arabian tribes while Peleg is the progenitor of northwest Mesopotamian families. In the Table of Nations the name “Peleg” generates a pun that associates his era with a momentous but now cryptic event: “Because in his time the earth was divided” (see 10:25). When we count Abraham as the tenth member of the Shem line, Peleg occupies the halfway mark (fifth) in the line of Shem. We cannot be certain, but if the folk etymology of 10:25 ties his generation to the tower event, then the dispersion is situated at the midpoint between Shem and the era of Abraham. Another striking feature of Peleg’s role is the sudden reduction in the years of his life span (239) compared to his father (464) and grandfather (433). This may underscore that the Peleg era, if it were contemporaneous with the Babel generation, was particularly impacted by the sin of the age.

11:20–25 By tracing the line of Peleg, the author presents Shemite descendants not previously cited. “Reu” (v. 20) cannot be identified with a specific site. The name appears only once in the Old Testament and in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:35). It may be related to “Ruel,” meaning “friend of God” or “God is friend,” which appears again as the son of Esau (36:4, 10–17). Personal names having the element “Reu” are widely attested in the second and first millennia b.c. in Aramaic and Akkadian texts.

“Serug” (v. 22) also occurs only once more, in Luke 3:35. Serug and other relatives of Abraham have names that are also names of Mesopotamian cities. Serug has been related to the neo-Assyrian site sa-ru-gi, which is just west of Haran in Upper Mesopotamia. The name possibly is found in a personal name attested during the Sumerian Ur III period (ca. 2000 b.c.).

“Nahor” (v. 24) is the grandfather of Abraham, whose brother bears his name (v. 27). Nahor lived 138 years, a much shorter span than his father Serug (230) or his son Terah (205). The grandson Nahor will play an important role in the life of the patriarchs (22:20–24; 31:53). The city Nahur, located near Haran in northwest Mesopotamia, occurs in a number of ancient Near Eastern texts, including Mari of the early second millennium b.c. Also the personal name Nahurum is attested as early as the Ur III period. Rebekah, the wife of Isaac and mother of Esau and Jacob, is from the “town of Nahor” (24:10) and the granddaughter of Nahor (22:23).

The last name in the listing is “Terah,” the patriarch of the Abraham clan. His name heads the Abraham story (11:27–25:11) and therefore is the critical link in the transition from early Genesis to the era of Israel’s patriarchs. Terah fathers children at a much later age (seventy years) than his predecessors, who became fathers in their early thirties. This becomes a portent that will haunt the Abraham-Sarah family. The transitional paragraph 11:27–32 makes it explicit that Sarah was barren (11:30), preparing the reader for the tension that dominates the Abraham account (e.g., 15:3). Abraham persisted in his faith and was declared right with God (Rom 4:3, 20–23 with Gen 15:5–6). Terah’s “seventy” years, as a product of seven and ten, is reminiscent of the seventy nations of chap. 10 and the common use of numeric sevens and tens in chaps. 1–11. If there is any special meaning attached to “seventy,” it may be that it distinguishes the propitious moment that Father Abraham comes into the world.

“Terah,” as with the names of his ancestors, has also occurred as a place name, Til (ša) Turahi, known from neo-Assyrian texts of the ninth century b.c. It was located on the Balikh River near Haran and in the area of the already-mentioned cities Nahur and Sarugi. This northwest region of Upper Mesopotamia became the home of Terah’s family, which had migrated from Ur en route to Canaan (11:31) and is the background for the patriarchal narratives. Terah dies in Haran at 205 years (v. 32). The word “Terah” has been related to trḥ, perhaps meaning “ibex, mountain goat,” and also yārēaḥ, meaning “moon.” At Ur and Haran the moon deity was prominent, but recently the association of Terah with the moon god Têr of Haran has been rejected. Nevertheless the biblical tradition clearly associates Terah’s household with idolatry. Abram’s worship of the Lord God is distinguished from Terah’s polytheistic life at Ur (“beyond the River”) in Josh 24:2. It was out of such a household that Abraham answered the call of God.

(3) Terah’s Sons (11:26)

²⁶After Terah had lived 70 years, he became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran.

11:26 Appropriately the final verse of early Genesis concerns the procreation of three children. From the outset God’s promissory blessing for the human family (1:28; 9:1, 7) has been the ongoing concern of the author. Despite the remarkable threats and detours of eleven chapters, the promise has been kept alive by the forbearance of God. Terah’s fathering of three sons at the close of the genealogical record trumpets the hope that awaits the human family through the appointed “seed,” Abraham.

As noted earlier, with the Shemite line climaxing in the naming of three, we have the parallel structure of Genesis 5 with Noah fathering Shem, Ham, and Japheth (v. 32). Shem is the eldest son (see 10:21), but Abram, his counterpart, is never said to be the firstborn. If he is the firstborn, then Shem heads the elect lineage, and Abraham as his parallel concludes it. At least, it is safe to say that Shem and Abraham are the prominent figures of their respective households for God’s elective purposes and thus are named first in each one’s respective trilogy.

Abram’s name later becomes the source of an important wordplay when his name is changed to “Abraham” (17:5) in connection with the covenant promise of offspring for the patriarch and Sarah. “Abram” is generally interpreted as a combination of “father” (ʾab) and “exalted/exaltation” (rāmrûm). The possibilities are many for understanding the name: “he is exalted as to his father,” “exalted father,” “the father is exalted,” and combinations of “my father” understood on the analogy of “Abiram” (ʾăbîrām; ʾăbî = “my father,” Num 16:1). In the first case the name would refer to the distinction of the person’s parentage. “Father” also can be taken as an allusion to God, thus “my father [God] is exalted” would be the sense. “Abarama” (and variants) as a personal name occurs in cuneiform texts from as early as the early second millennium. If the name is derived from Akkadian ramu, then the meaning is “he loves the father” or “the father loves him.”

“Abraham” is explained in Genesis 17 to mean “father of many nations” (17:5). This name may be taken merely as a phonological variant of “Abram” formed by the inclusion of h, a practice attested in Semitic elsewhere. Following the analogy of Abram, we would expect a combination of ʾab (“father”) and raham (“many, multitude”). There is, however, no such root raham attested in the Hebrew Bible, though Arabic has ruhām, meaning “multitude.” Some posit that either Hebrew raham or a similar root existed as the basis for the name. “Abraham” is similar in sound to the word “multitude” (hămôn) in 17:4–5 and may be the result of a popular etymology. In any case the point of the new name is clear. By another benevolent gesture God affirms his commitment to Abra(ha)m and insures his future.

Abraham’s brothers are “Nahor,” named after his grandfather (papponymy), and “Haran.” Nahor will father twelve sons, nephews of Abraham (22:20–24; see 11:24). Haran should not be confused with the place name Haran (ḥārān). The personal name is derived probably from the compound of har, “mountain,” and the suffixal element n. Though Haran died before the family departed Ur (v. 28), his progeny was important to the life of Terah’s family. His son was Lot, who migrated with Terah and later accompanied Abraham in his travels to Canaan (v. 27; 12:4). Haran’s daughter Milcah married his brother (her uncle) Nahor (v. 29) and bore eight sons, one of which was Bethuel, who fathered Laban and Rebekah, the wife of Isaac (22:23).

(1) Introduction: Terah (11:27a)

²⁷This is the account of Terah.

“This is the account [tôlĕdōt] of Terah” (11:27a) introduces the seventh (tōlĕdōt) section of the book (11:27–25:11), providing the transition from early Genesis to the ancestors of Israel.

(2) Terah’s Family (11:27b–30)

Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. ²⁸While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. ²⁹Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milcah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milcah and Iscah. ³⁰Now Sarai was barren; she had no children.

11:27b–28 Terah was seventy when he became a father (v. 26). Although Haran’s age when he fathered Lot is not recorded, the narrative gives the impression that he was a young parent. Haran also had two daughters, Milcah and Iscah (v. 29). In the Shem genealogy (11:10–26) their grandfather Nahor was the youngest to become a parent, at twenty-nine (v. 24). This family history of early procreation serves as a foil for Abram and Sarai, who were childless. Although no offspring is mentioned for Nahor-Milcah, there is no statement about Milcah’s barrenness as there is for Sarai (v. 30). Later, Abram learns that Milcah bore eight sons to Nahor in Aram, and Nahor’s concubine Reumah bore four sons (22:20–24). At age sixty-five Sarai would have been late in giving birth to a child (12:4; 17:17). Mention of her barrenness is a proleptic clue that Abram was the chosen descendant in Terah’s household who would inherit the blessing. Barrenness was a distinguishing feature of the elect line, beginning with Abram (Sarai) and Isaac (Rebekah) and continuing with Jacob, who faced this trial with his favored wife, Rachel.

Lot is the only male descendant, however, from the Terah group at this point. He became a companion for Abram in his early travels (12:4; 13:5). As to whether Abram viewed him as a potential heir by adoption is not explicitly stated, as it is with Abram’s servant Eliezer (15:2). Lot is identified in relation to Terah, not Abram (v. 31). Nevertheless, maintaining amicable relations with Lot is too important to Abram to jeopardize (13:8). Silence in the passage regarding how Haran died creates a mystery in the narrative and leaves the possibility that Lot too might meet the same fate prematurely. It is a devastating and unexpected sorrow for a father to outlive his son (cf. 37:34–35). The prospects of Terah’s house for the future, which at first seemed so promising by the birth of three sons, became precarious in the next generation.

Reference to “Ur of the Chaldeans” (11:28) identifies the native land of Haran but not necessarily of Terah and his sons Abram and Nahor. In fact, the inclusion of this information for Haran may suggest the ancestral home was elsewhere (for this discussion see comments on 12:1). “Ur of the Chaldeans” occurs three times in Genesis (11:28, 31; 15:7) and once elsewhere (Neh 9:7). Stephen identified the place of God’s revelation to Abram as “Mesopotamia” from which he departed: “So he left the land of the Chaldeans and settled in Haran” (Acts 7:3–4). The “land [chōra] of the Chaldeans” rather than “Ur of the Chaldeans” is the Septuagint translation, as reflected in Stephen’s sermon, which can be explained as either a textual slip due to the prior phrase “land of his birth” or the ancient translator’s uncertainty about the identity of the site. J. W. Wevers proposes that due to the apposition of “land of his birth,” the translator interpreted “Ur” as a region.

“Chaldeans” in Genesis probably is an explanatory addition, identifying Abram’s city in the region of Chaldea in southern Babylonia. The Chaldeans as a people group are first known from Assyrian texts of the ninth century. They were of West-Semitic stock and perhaps were related to the Arameans, though this connection is unclear. A grandson of Nahor was named “Aram,” and one of Nahor’s eight sons by Milcah was “Kesed” (22:22), a name related phonetically to the Hebrew spelling for Chaldeans (kaśdîm). The Chaldean ruler Nabopolassar (625–605), father of the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar, launched the rise of the Neo-Babylonian empire in the seventh–sixth centuries.

The ancient Sumerian city Ur (fourth millennium) is the site traditionally identified as Terah’s residence. C. L. Wooley’s excavations (1922–1934) of the city (Tell Muqqayyar), located on the Euphrates in southern Iraq, yielded substantial information about the city’s history and life. It played an important political and cultural role in the ancient Near East during the latter half of the third millennium. Ur’s ascendancy occurred with the flowering of the Third Dynasty of Ur founded by Ur-Nammu (ca. 2100), who is remembered for his law code and great ziggurat (see vol. 1a, p. 476). Both Ur and Haran honored the moon god Nannar (= Akk. god Sin), which probably was one of many deities worshiped by Abram’s ancestors (Josh 24:2) (see vol. 1a, pp. 498–99).

11:29–30 Endogamy, that is, marriage within a family group, prevailed among the patriarchs. Sarai was Abram’s half-sister, having the same father (Terah) but a different mother (20:12). Milcah married her uncle Nahor, brother of her father Haran (v. 29). The parallel descriptions of Abram and Nahor’s wives heightens the additional information given to Milcah’s family connections. Silence about Sarai’s kinships preserves the surprise outcome of Abraham’s deceit of Abimelech (20:12). Sarai and Milcah share in possessing regal titles for names; “Sarai” probably means “princess,” and the name “Milcah” is related to the Hebrew words “king” (melek) and “queen” (malkâ). This may hint that the two wives were blood relations but the passage is concerned only with Milcah’s family associations. As for Sarai’s family connections at this point in the story, she is the outsider who is yet to be a contributor.

Milcah was the daughter of Haran, thus the niece of Nahor (her husband) and Abram and the granddaughter of Terah. The sister of Milcah, Iscah, is otherwise unknown; the sisters’ names end in the rhyming sound kâ (cp. Adah, Zillah, 4:19). Lot was Milcah’s brother. Milcah’s linkage with the Abraham branch is reinforced by her granddaughter Rebekah, born to Milcah’s son Bethuel, who marries Isaac. Rebekah’s marriage in the Abraham line of Terah reunited the two branches of Terah’s descendants. The Aramean connection of the Nahor clan with Abraham is also achieved through Milcah’s grandson, Laban, whose daughters, Leah and Rachel, marry their Hebrew cousin, Jacob. By these two women, “who together built up the house of Israel” (Ruth 4:11), the Hebrew people can trace their ancestry to their prepatriarchal roots in Terah.

Sarai’s condition explains the attention given to the women of Terah’s family. Not only at this point does Sarai have no beginnings, she also has no continuation through a child. The message is thunderous: the woman is a “weak link,” we would say, in the chain of blessing. Her barren state dominates the Abraham story since the divine promises involve a numerous host of progeny for Abram (12:2a; 15:4–5; 17:1–2; 18:10). Here “she had no children” (11:30) underscores at the start the need for God’s help (17:17; 18:11–12; 21:1, 7; Rom 4:19; Heb 11:11). This redundancy in the text occurs only for Sarai’s barrenness unlike Rebekah (25:21) and Rachel (29:31), where “barren” alone occurs.

There is one other significance to be drawn from this short introduction to the Terah clan. The renaming of “Sarai” to “Sarah” will be instrumental in conveying her role as the mother of “nations” and the ancestress of “kings of peoples” (17:15–16). Despite her dim prospects, Sarai emerges by God’s gracious intervention to achieve the regal stature that her name “princess” conveys. She becomes the matriarch of all Israel (Isa 51:2).

(3) Terah’s Life and Death (11:31–32)

³¹Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Haran, they settled there.

³²Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Haran.

11:31–32 The last two verses of this transitional paragraph prepare for the independence of Abram from his “father’s household” (12:1). This is shown first by the geographical movements of the clan members and second by the death notice of Terah. Although the intent of Terah was “to go to Canaan” from Ur, the family “settled” in Haran (v. 31). This phrase “settled there [Haran]” indicates a sustained residency on Terah’s part (e.g., 26:17; Ruth 1:4; 2 Sam 15:29; 2 Chr 28:18). Terah’s movement raises a number of questions left unanswered by the passage. Why did he depart from Ur for Canaan, and why did he take such a circuitous route to Haran, where he remained? There is no explanation given for their departure. Also Haran, en route from Ur, assuming Ur was in the south, would be unnecessarily far to the north if traveling to Canaan. Perhaps the commercial and cultural connections between Ur and Haran explain Terah’s residence in Haran if he abandoned plans early to go to Canaan. Or Haran may have been the clan’s original homeland (see comments on 12:1).

More important, the language “settled there” echoes the Babel account (11:2, 8–9), where the residents of Shinar refused to “fill” the earth in accord with the divine mandate (1:28; 9:1). This is not to say that Terah’s migration was part of the scattering of peoples from Babel. Rather, the language “settled there” is chosen by the author to cast a shadow on Terah’s decision to dwell in Haran, and it provides the negative contrast for Abram’s faithful answer to the call (12:4). This is one of many ways the faith of Abram and his role in accomplishing the mandate to “fill” the earth are distinguished from those of his Shemite heritage (11:10–26).

Until this point, however, Abram remained under his father’s authority. “Took” (lāqaḥ) indicates Terah’s authority (v. 31), as it later appears to define Abram’s position (12:5). This same term “took” is translated “married,” in the sense of to “take in marriage” (v. 29). The parallel occurrences of “took” in vv. 29 and 31 suggest that Abram has two allegiances, his wife and his father. Family ties to the Terah clan, however, must be loosened if Abram will enter into God’s promises (12:1).

Lot, we have observed, accompanied his grandfather Terah as the lone representative of Terah’s deceased son, Haran. Lot’s future, tied as it was initially to the prosperity of Abram, turned shamefully from bad to worse, from living in Sodom to his incestuous relations with his daughters, who birthed the Ammonites and Moabites (chap. 19). With the union of Boaz and Ruth the Moabite, the schism between the Abram and Lot families is repaired (Ruth 4). It will be Milcah, the sister of Lot, however, who reconciles the Haran branch by giving birth to Bethuel, making her eventually the maternal grandmother (Rebekah) and great-grandmother (Leah, Rachel) of Israel.

Both ancient and modern interpretations have included Nahor and Milcah among the traveling members of the Terah caravan, so as to involve all three branches. The Samaritan Pentateuch includes Nahor and Milcah by name in v. 31. U. Cassuto retains the MT but interprets it to include the Nahor branch. Nahor and Milcah among all the family members are the ones who “set out,” understanding the phrase “with them” to refer to the specific group of Abram, Sarai, and Lot (cp. 12:5). This interpretation of the language, however, has been shown to be forced.³⁹ No mention is given in the story of the Nahor migration to Haran, which surely occurred (24:10). This is striking since the Nahor-Milcah family provides wives for the Abram group in Canaan. The author’s silence about Nahor’s movements may be attributed to Nahor’s absence in Canaan, whereas Lot is named since he and Abram continue a relationship in Canaan. It is not until after the death of Sarah some sixty years later when Abraham dispatches his servant to retrieve a wife for Isaac that the Aram group is reintroduced (chap. 24). Moreover, the Nahor branch became so identified with north Mesopotamia that Haran could be cited as “the town of Nahor” (24:10).

“And together they set out” (11:31) in the NIV is the best that can be done to make sense of the MT in context. The Hebrew phrase “and they went out with them” is contextually difficult since “with them” has the same antecedent as the subject of the verb, that is, Terah, Abram, Lot, and Sarai. Since the subject of the previous clause is “Terah [took],” the ancient versions continue the same sense, “and he [Terah] brought them out.” This variant reading reinforces what we observed earlier in the verse but is not necessary to make the point: Terah leads the group out of Ur, and Abram is in tow.

Our passage presents the human perspective on the migration of Abram. The divine perspective is heard from later in Canaan: “I am the Lord who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans” (15:7). Both descriptions use the same verb (yāṣāʾ) and the same form (hiphil stem) if we read with the variant “he brought them out” (also Neh 9:7). Although it was Terah who “took” Abram, the Lord God who had appeared to Abram at Ur (Acts 7:4) had initiated their travel plans.

The death of Terah (v. 32), as the case with Noah’s obituary (9:29), signals the end of an era (see vol. 1a, p. 491). As for the chronological questions concerning the age of the patriarch’s death, we have already spoken to them (vol. 1A, p. 499, n. ³⁴). This notice closes out the role of Terah in the account, although he lived another sixty years. The same feature occurs for Abraham, who lived another fifteen years after the birth of Esau and Jacob (25:5, 7, 11 with 25:26). The transition is made complete with the announcement of Terah’s death, whether the remark of his passing and Abram’s move to Canaan reflects real time or is proleptic (12:4).

^{^[1]} Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, pp. 440–443). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

^{^[2]} Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, pp. 444–458). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

^{^[3]} Mathews, K. A. (1996). Genesis 1-11:26 (Vol. 1A, pp. 460–465). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

Genesis10-11

Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Meta

Recent Posts

Categories

Upcoming Events

Events

MensBibleStudy

Men's Info

First Baptist Elyria

Service Times