English
Português
Español
Français
Answer
Genesis chapter 10, commonly known as the Table of Nations, is a list of the patriarchal founders of seventy nations that descended from Noah through his three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Twenty-six of the seventy nations descended from Shem, thirty from Ham, and fourteen from Japheth. Genesis 10:32 summarizes the chapter concisely: “These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, by their nations; and out of these the nations were separated on the earth after the flood.” Chapter 11 recounts their division at Babel.
The text seems to imply, although it never explicitly states, that the list was intended to be a comprehensive account. It has traditionally been interpreted as such. However, this interpretation is speculative.
All of the biblical genealogies are condensed. Key historical figures are included while “lesser” or less culturally relevant siblings are omitted. It is possible that this is also the case for the Table of Nations. The compiler of the Table may have focused his study on nations most significant to his own nation at the time of compiling the Table, while overlooking the founders of other distant, perhaps even forgotten nations. While every nation is ultimately connected to every other nation through Noah, this ancestral connection does not indefinitely sustain mutual cultural significance among his descendants.
While some of the nations listed are easily recognizable, others remain obscure. Many scholars have tried to identify these unknown nations with varying degrees of success. Due to the antiquated nature of the source material, there remains significant ambiguity.
The accuracy of the Table has been questioned because some of the relationships described do not align with modern comparative linguistics. For instance, the Elamites are said to have descended from Shem, yet their language was not Semitic. The Canaanites are another example where the linguistic connection is not straightforward.
ites are said to have descended from Ham, yet their language was Semitic.
This objection assumes that these languages never experienced any dramatic change. The region’s history seems to suggest that this is a dubious assumption. The cultures of the region were constantly subject to migrations and invasions by foreign powers. The conquering empires often imposed their language and culture upon the vanquished.
The Hellenizing of the Persian Empire following Alexander the Great’s conquest is a classic example. Or consider the Israelites, who primarily spoke ancient Hebrew up until the Babylonian captivity and the Persian conquest. Then they adopted Aramaic, the official language of the Persian Empire. The Jewish Talmud was written in Aramaic, as were large portions of the books of Daniel and Ezra. Aramaic is thought to have been Jesus’ native language. Following Alexander’s conquest of Persia, the Jews adopted Greek as a second language. As a result, all of the New Testament was written in Greek. The languages of the region were not static.
The Hebrews invaded and conquered Canaan long before the Greeks, Persians, and Babylonians. Is it surprising that the Canaanites of the region adopted a Semitic language almost identical to ancient Hebrew? As for the Elamites, if we want to make a case from Elamite we have to start with proto-Elamite. Proto-Elamite remains undeciphered, so it cannot form the basis for a polemic against the Table of Nations. There is no evidence that the later, non-Semitic Elamite underlies proto-Elamite, and we do not know what influences may have altered the language at any time.
Another objection to the Table of Nations is that several of the nations listed do not appear in the historical record (as we have it today) until as late as the first millennium BC. This has led some critical scholars to date the Table no earlier than the 7th century BC.
This is a recurring criticism of the Bible. Rather than give the Bible the benefit of the doubt whenever it mentions a
City or culture that doesn’t appear anywhere else in the historical record, or whenever it places a culture in an era that antedates any other record we have from our other limited sources, critics generally assume that the biblical authors were either disingenuous or ignorant. Such was the case for the ancient metropolis of Nineveh and the ancient Hittite civilization of the Levant, both of which were rediscovered in modern times, in the 19th and 20th centuries, respectively, in a remarkable vindication of the Bible’s historical witness. The fact of the matter is our knowledge of ancient cultures is extremely fragmented and often dependent upon key assumptions. It is therefore speculative to argue that the Table of Nations was written so late based solely on the fact that some of the nations mentioned appear nowhere else than in later historical records.
One final objection concerns the fact that Nimrod is said to have been a son of Cush «And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. », (Genesis 10:8), who is believed to have founded Nubia just south of Egypt. Yet Nimrod established several cities in Mesopotamia that show no sign of Nubian origin (Genesis 10:8-12). Does this mean, as some critics claim, that the Table is therefore manifestly wrong, either about Nimrod’s lineage or his role in establishing the Mesopotamian cities?
Skeptics who make this argument overlook the fact that Cush also fathered the founders of at least six Arabian nations «And the sons of Cush; Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtechah: and the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan. », (Genesis 10:7), none of which show signs of Nubian origin. This is because Nubia developed along its own cultural path over many generations. Nimrod was an iImmediate son of Cush. We have no reason to expect him or the cities he helped establish to show any indication of Nubian origin.
In conclusion, the Table of Nations presents the biblical, ethnological perspective that all nations are descendants of Noah through three of his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It is uncertain whether the list of seventy was intended to be comprehensive or if some nations were omitted, whether intentionally or accidentally. The accuracy of the information we have about the Table has been challenged by skeptics whose critical objections tend to be flawed and unsubstantial. Due to the antiquated nature of the source material, the truthfulness of the Table ultimately remains indeterminable. Ultimately, those who embrace it do so by faith, considering it as part of a broader, justifiable viewpoint. Those who dismiss it essentially do so for the same reasons.
