Genesis 10 commentary

GE ESIS 10 COMME TARY
EDITED BY GLE PEASE
1.
This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth,
oah's sons, who themselves had sons after the
flood.
BE SO , ". Although this chapter may appear to some unprofitable, it is indeed of
great use. 1st, It gives us a true, and the only true account of the origin of the several
nations of the world. 2d, It discovers and distinguishes from all other nations, the
people in which God’s church was to be preserved, and from which Christ was to
come. 3d, It explains and confirms oah’s prophecy concerning his three sons, and
makes the accomplishment of it evident. 4th, It enables us to understand many other
parts of Scripture, as well prophetical and poetical, as historical and doctrinal. It is
therefore well worth our attention. These are the sons of oah, Shem, &c. —
Although Shem is always named first, when the sons of oah are enumerated,
because he was the progenitor of Abraham and of Christ, and because the church of
God was continued in his line, yet it is generally thought he was the youngest of the
three, and that Japheth, though always mentioned last, was the eldest.
WESLEY
This chapter contains, the only certain account extant of the original of nations; and yet,
perhaps, there is no nation, but that of the Jews, that can be confident from which of these
seventy fountains (for many there are here) it derived its streams. Through the want of
early records, the mixtures of people, the revolutions of nations, and distance of time, the
knowledge of the lineal descent of the present inhabitants of the earth is lost: nor were
any genealogies preserved but those of the Jews, for the sake of the Messiah. Only, in this
chapter, we have a brief account,
I. Of the posterity of Japheth, ver. 2-5.

II. The posterity of Ham, ver. 6-20. and, in that particular notice taken of Nimrod, ver. 8-
9.
III. The posterity of Shem, ver. 23-31.
ELLICOTT, "THE ETHNOLOGICAL TABLE (Genesis 10:1 to Genesis 11:9).
These are the generations (the tôldôth) of the sons of Noah.—The importance of this
“table of the nations” can scarcely be over-estimated; and while numerous exceptions
were taken only a few years ago to many of its details, the vast increase of human
knowledge in recent times has proved not merely its general credibility, but the truth of
such startling facts as the possession by the race of Ham not only of the Arabian
peninsula, but of the country on the Tigris and Euphrates. Its position is very remarkable.
It stands at the end of grand traditional records of the mighty past, but belongs to a period
long subsequent, giving us a picture of the division of the world at a time when nations
and kingdoms had become settled, and their boundaries fixed; and it couples this with the
confusion of tongues, difference of language being the great factor in this breaking up of
the human race. Now, it is important to remember that it is not a genealogical table. It
concerns peoples, and not individuals, and no names are mentioned which were not
represented by political organisations. Generally even the names are not those of men, but
of tribes or nations. We must also bear in mind that it works backwards, and not
forwards. Taking the nations at some particular time, it groups them together, and
classifies them according to the line to which they belonged.
As regards the order, it begins with Japheth, the youngest son—for never was there a
translation more opposed to the undeviating rule of such sentences than that of our
version in Genesis 10:21. “Shem . . . the brother of Japheth the elder,” instead of “Shem,
the elder brother of Japheth.” But Japheth is here placed first because so little was known
of the nations sprung from him. It gives, moreover, the mere first division into main lines,
and then, in spite of the grand future that awaited his descendants, it dismisses them in
brief haste to their homes on the Black and Mediterranean seas. It next takes Ham. Now,
Ham was to the family of Noah what Cain was to that of Adam: first in all worldly
accomplishments, last in all the gifts of piety. Settling upon the Nile, the Tigris, and
Euphrates, his progeny raised up mighty cities, while the Japhethites were wandering in
barbarous hordes over Europe, and the Shemites were pasturing their cattle upon the
chalk-downs of Syria; whence, nevertheless, they soon came to do battle with the
Hamites for the possession of Mesopotamia. Of the Hamites, it brings the history down to
the time of their settlement in Canaan, but as it mentions Sodom and Gomorrah as still
standing, the document must be prior to the time of the destruction of those cities,
eighteen centuries and more before I Christ; while, as it describes the Canaanites as even
then in possession of Palestine, and as formed into tribes in much the same way as just
before the time of Moses, it is evident that a much longer period must have elapsed
between the flood and the birth of Abraham than is supposed in the ordinary chronology
put in the margin of our Bibles. As the line of Shem was to be traced in subsequent
tôldôth, it is not carried down so far as that of Ham, but stops at a great dividing line, at
which the family breaks up into the race of Joktan and that of Peleg. To the former it

ascribes thirteen nations, while the race of Peleg is left for future histories. The names of
the Joktanite tribes also indicate the lapse of a lengthened period of time, as they abound
in Arabic peculiarities.
Verse 1
(1) Shem, Ham, and Japheth.—This is the un-deviating arrangement of the three brothers.
(See Note on Genesis 9:24; Genesis 10:21.)
COKE, "Genesis 10:1. Now these are the generations, &c.— To give an exact and
satisfactory comment on this chapter, would far exceed the bounds we have prescribed
ourselves: we shall therefore beg leave only to insert as plain an exposition of the names
as we can collect, and refer our learned readers for proof and fuller discussion of these
matters to those writers who have treated of them at large, but especially to the Phaleg of
Bochart, Calmet, the Universal History, Wells, Shuckford, and others. It may be proper to
observe, that though this chapter be placed before the eleventh, yet in order of time it
ought to follow; for the foundation of Nimrod's kingdom, and the dispersion of mankind
through the different regions of the earth, are facts posterior to the confusion of Babel.
And it should also be observed, that the design of the holy penman is not to present us
with an exact enumeration of all Noah's descendants, (this would have been endless,) nor
to determine who were the leading men above all the rest; but only to give us a catalogue
or general account of the names of some certain persons descended from Noah, who were
patriarchs and founders of such nations, as were more immediately known to the Hebrews
in the time of Moses.
ARTHUR CUSTA CE has the most detailed study of this chapter. If it is boring to
you just skip to the next author.
THE TABLE OF ATIO S: A U IQUE DOCUME T
FOR SOME people genealogies are fascinating things. For anyone who has
roamed widely and deeply in history, they serve somewhat the same purpose as
maps do for those who have roamed widely and deeply over a country. The
historian pores over the genealogy as the traveller pores over his map. Both
provide insights into relationships and a kind of skeletal framework about which
to hang much else that has stirred the imagination. As Kalisch observed, (3)
"The earliest historiography consists almost entirely of genealogies: they are
most frequently the medium of explaining the connection and descent of tribes
and nations," and inserting where appropriate brief historical notes such as
those relating to imrod and Peleg in Genesis 10. Maps, too, have such little
"notes."
Although the genealogies of the Bible are apt to be treated with less respect
than the more strictly narrative portions, they are nevertheless worthy of careful
study and will be found to provide unexpected "clues to Holy Writ." Genesis 10,
"The Table of ations," is certainly no exception.
But opinions have differed very widely as to its value as a historical
document. Its value in other respects, for example, as an indication of how

strongly its author was aware of the true brotherhood of man -- a most
exceptional circumstance in his own day is admitted universally. By contrast,
disagreement about its historical worth is not lirnited to liberal versus
evangelical writers but exists equally sharply between writers within these
opposing camps. To take two representative opinions from
3 Kalisch, M. M., A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament,
Longmans, Brown, Green, London, 1858, p.235.
pg 1 of 23
the ranks of very liberal scholars of half a century ago, we may quote Driver
who wrote: (4)
It is thus evident that the Table of ations contains no scientific
classification of the races of mankind. ot only this, however, it also offers no
historically true account of the origin of the races of mankind.
And over against this, we have the opinion of the very famous Professor
Kautzsch of Halle who wrote: (5)
The so-called Table of ations remains, according to all results of
monumental explorations, an ethnographic original document of the first rank
which nothing can replace.
Among Evangelicals, however, the divergence of opinion tends to be not over
the historicity of this ancient Table, but rather over its comprehensiveness. The
question raised is whether we are really to understand that Scripture intends to
signify that this genealogy supplies us with the names of the progenitors of the
whole of the world's present population, including the egroid and Mongoloid
racial groups: or whether it provides only a summary statement of the
relationships of those people who were known to the writer personally or by
hearsay. At the same time, there is little disagreement among Evangelicals as to
the basic fact that all men, none excepted, are to be traced back ultimately to
Adam.
In this chapter, it is proposed to consider the Table as a whole with respect to
its value, importance, and uniqueness among similar ancient records; and to
examine its structure and its date.
This will be followed in the second chapter by a careful survey of one branch
of the race, the Japhethites, the object being to show how reasonable the record
is where we have sufficient information to assess it in detail. The assumption one
might properly make on the basis of this study is that the rest of the Table would
prove equally authentic and illuminating of ethnological history, if we had
available the same amount of detailed information regarding the identity of the
names recorded as we have of the family of Japheth.
In the third chapter, we shall explore the evidence from contemporary
literature that unintentionally supports the implication

4 Driver, S. R., The Book of Genesis, Westminister Commentaries, 3rd. edition,
Methuen, London, 1904, p.114.
5 Kautzsch, Prof., quoted hy James Orr, "The Early arratives of Genesis," in
The Eundamentals, vol.1, Biola Press, 1917, p.234.
pg.2 of 23
of Scripture: that, all peoples of the world having been derived from the fami]y
of oah, wherever people are found in the world they must ultimately have
migrated from the place where the Ark is said to have ,grounded; and that this
assumption must apply equally to historic as well as to prehistoric man. In other
words, here is the Cradle of Mankind, and here is the focal point of all
subsequent dispersion of all who belong within the species Homo sapiens.
Our conclusion is that this Table of ations is a unique and priceless
document which makes a justifiable claim of comprehensiveness for the whole
human race, and supplies us with insights into the relationships of the earliest
people known to us, which would be quite lost to us but for Genesis 10.
Intrinsic Value and Underlying Concept of the Table
Opinions regarding the value of this Table vary enormously. In 1906, James
Thomas, (6) in what he is pleased to call a critical inquiry, says simply, "It is
certain that the entire list is valueless"! The famous S. R. Driver is not quite so
devastating in his pronouncements, yet the final effect of his words is much the
same. In his commentary on Genesis, he says, (7)
The object of this Table is partly to show how the Hebrews supposed the
principle nations known to them to be related to each other, partly to assign
Israel, in particular, its place among them. . . .
The names are in no case to be taken as those of real individuals. . . .
The real origin of the nations enumerated here, belonging in many cases to
entirely different racial types -- Semites, Aryans Hittites, Egyptians must have
reached back into remote prehistoric ages from which we may be sure not even
the dimmest recollections could have beeh preserved at the time when the
chapter was written. The nations and tribes existed: and imaginary ancestors
were afterwardls postulated for the purpose of exhibiting pictorially the
relationship in which they were supposed to stand towards one another.
An exactly parallel instance, though not so fully worked out, is afforded by
the ancient Greeks. The general name of the Greeks was Hellenes, the principle
sub-divisions were the Dorians, the Aeolians, the Ionians, and the Achaeans; and
accordingly the Greeks traced their descent from a supposed eponymous
ancester Helen, who had three sons, Dorus and
6 Thomas, James, Genesis and Exodus as History, Swan Sonnenschein 1906,
p.144.
7 Driver, S. R., The Book of Genesis, Westminister Commentaries, 3rd. edition,

Methuen, London, 1904, p.112.
pg.3 of 23
Aeolus, the supposed ancestors of the Dorians and Aeolians, and Xuthus, from
whose two sons, Ion and Achaeus, the Ionians and Achaeans were respectively
supposed to be descended.
This excerpt from the work of Driver opens up a number of questions. To
begin with, in view of the steadily increasing respect which is being accorded to
ancient traditions, it may very well be that the parallel which this learned author
has rather cynically proposed, far from being a testimony against the Table, may
in fact be a witness in its favour. The Greek counterpart may not be an invention
of some early historian at all, but may be a statement of fact. After all, people do
not ordinarily invent ancestors for themselves. ames of progenitors are of very
great importance to any people who have little or no written history, for such
names are the pegs upon which they hang the great events of their past.
A further assumption is made by Driver which is equally unjustified: this is to
the effect that the compiler of this Table was writing a kind of fictional history
with the deliberate intent of giving his own people, the Israelites, an antiquity
equal to that of the great nations around them. Since, as we shall see, the Table
certainly does not on its face bear any evidence of being written for propaganda
purposes, Driver appears to be reading more into the record than is justified. It
is rather like setting up a straw man in order to be able to demolish him with
scholarly verbosity.
A third point is and this is a very important issue that Driver supposes the
only source of information which the writer had was his own fertile imagination
and the traditions current in his time ignoring entirely the possibility that God
had providentially taken care to ensure that all the information necessary for
compiling this Table should be preserved by one means or another. One only has
to make what is, after all, a reasonable assumption for a Christian, namely, that
God had a specific purpose for the inclusion of such a Table of ations at this
point in the writing of Holy Scripture. Part, at least, of this purpose is clear
enough and will be examined subsequently.
But Driver's opinion about the value and importance of the document has not
been shared by later writers who lived long enough to witness the enormous
expansion of our knowledge of early Middle East history resulting partly from
linguistic studies, partly from archaeology, and more recently still from the
findings
pg.4 of 23
of physical anthropologists, who are recovering some important lines of
migration in "prehistoric" times.
Before giving consideration to these findings, it may be worthwhile pointing
out that the value of a document may change with time, so that it does not
become more valuable or less valuable, but rather valuable in an entirely new

way. There is a sense in which Genesis 10 retains its unique worth as the first
document to proclaim the unity of Man, just as the Magna Charta was the first
document to proclaim the equality of Man. To say, as Thomas did, that the
document is valueless, is to betray an extraordinary narrowness of vision, by
making the assumption that the only value a document can have is its use as a
source of information for the historian. Historical veracity is one kind of value,
but there are other values.
It should not for one moment, however, be supposed by this statement that
we are relinquishing the historicity of this chapter in order to establish its value
on another footing. The fact is, as we shall try to show, that wherever its
statements can be sufficiently tested, Genesis 10 has been found completely
accurate -- often where, at one time, it seemed most certainly to be in error. This
process of steady vindication has served to establish for it a second kind of value,
namely, that like every other part of Scripture which has similarly been
challenged and vindicated by research, it now contributes its testimony to the
dependability of these earlier portions of Genesis, upon the truth of which hangs
so much else of our faith.
Moreover, it is very difficult to conceive of the record of Genesis, which
carries the thread of history from Adam until well into those ages supplied with
monumental documents, without some kind of Table to set forth what happened
to oah's family and how the rest of the world, apart from the Middle East,
came to be peopled after the Flood. The Table thus becomes an essential part of
Scripture in its earliest portions, not merely lor the satisfying of our natural
curiosity, but to establish the fact that all men are of one blood, the offspring of
the first Adam, and redeemable by the blood of one Man, the Second Adam.
The Table thus serves three purposes. It supplies an essential chapter in the
early record of Genesis, rounding out what happened as the world's population
expanded. It joined the whole human race in a single family without giving the
least suggestion that any one particular branch of this family had
pg.5 of 23
pre-eminence over another a notable achievement. Finally, as a purely
historical document, it has provided insights into the relationships between
peoples that are only now becoming obtainable by other means, thereby adding
its testimony to the dependability of the Genesis record.
Of the first of these achievements, Dillmann had this to say: (8)
Egyptians and Phoenecians, Assyrians and Babylonians, even Indians and
Persians, had a certain rmeasure of geographical and ethnological knowledge,
before more strictly scientific investigation had been begun among the classical
peoples. From several of these, such as the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians,
and Persians, surveys or enumerations of the peoples known to them and
attempts at maps have come down to us in the written memorials they have left
behind. But not much attention was paid, as a rule, to foreigners unless national
and trade interests were at stake. Often enough they were despised as mere
barbarians, and in no case were they included with the more cultured nations in

a higher unity.
It is otherwise in our text. Here many with whom the Israelites had no sort
of actual relationship are taken into consideration. . . .
We are apt to be so familiar with the idea of the brotherhood of man, that we
assume it to be a concept accepted by all races at all times throughout history.
Occasionally we observe in our own selves a certain hesitancy in according other
nations who do not share our cultural values the full measure of humanness
which we accord to members of our own society. Such feelings, however, are apt
to be as much concealed as possible, since the proper thing nowadays is to
support the heroic assumption that "all men are equal." But there are times
when we can give vent to our true feelings in the rnatter, as for example when we
are at war. If the writer of the tenth chapter of Genesis was a Hebrew, it is likely
that, for him, the Canaanites were a particularly despised and degraded
subsection of the human race, whose status would tend to be put very low in the
scale. We have an analogy in the status accorded to the Jewish people by the
azis. To many Germans at that time, the Jews were not really human beings at
all. It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that in this Table of ations the
Canaanites are given equal standing in the pedigree of man with the descendants
of Eber, among whom the Jewish people are numbered.
8 Dillmann, A., Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, vol.1, T. and T.
Clark, Edinburgh, 1897, p.314.
pg.6 of 23
In his commentary, Kalisch (9) points out that even the curse of Canaan
seerns to have been forgotten, and no slightest hint of it appears in the record to
remind the reader. On the contrary, no other tribe is enumerated with such
complete detail as that of Canaan (verses 15-19). As this learned writer says,
" othing disturbs the harmony of this grand genealogy."
In the face of this, it is really rather extraordinary that Driver slrould
consider the document as, in one way, a piece of Jewish propaganda.
One further point is worth mentioning. When a civilization reaches a very
high level of development, there may come a clearer recognition that all men are
blood brothers. However, in a very small, closely knit community struggling to
establish itself, there may tend to be a very different attitude. Among most
primitive people the habit is to refer to themselves (in their own language, of
course) as "true rnen," referring to all others by some term which clearly denies
to them the right to manhood at all. Thus the askapi call themselves " eneot,"
which means "real people." The Chukchee say that their name rneans "real
men." The Hottentots refer to themselves as "Khoi-Khoi" which means "rnen of
men." The Yahgan of Tierra del Fuego (of all places) say that their name means
"men par excellence." The Andamanese, a people who appear to lack even the
rudiments of law, refer to themlselves as "Ong," meaning "Men." All these
people reserve these terms only for themselves. It is a sign of a low cultural state
when this attitude is taken, but then, when a people hold the opposite attitude, it

is likely a sign of a high cultural state. Thus when any people achieve a stage of
intellectual development at which they clearly conceive that all men are related
in a way which assures them equality as human beings, they are then highly
cultured, even though the mechanics of their civilization may appear at a low
stage of development. From this we ought logically to gather that the writer of
Genesis was a highly cultured individual. Indeed, it seerns to me that only with a
high conception of God would such a conception of man be possible, and
therefore Genesis 10 would seem to bear testirnony to a very high order of
religious faith. In the final analysis, one might ask whether it is possible at all to
sustain a true conception of the equality of man without also a true conception of
the nature of God. The former stems directly frorn the latter. The only ground
for attaching to all rnen an equal
9 Kalisch, M. M. A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament,
pg.7 of 23
level of worth is the tremendous fact that all souls have equal value to God.
Assuredly they do not have equal value to society.
Unless the ultimate standard of reference is the value which God attaches to
persons, it is quite unrealistic to talk about all men being equal. Consider the
drunken sot, wallowing in the gutter, poisoning the air with his foul language,
utterly confusing his children, destroying his family life, disgusting his friends,
disturbing his whole society -- how can such a man possibly be of equal value
with, for example, a pillar of the community who is full of neighbourly
goodness? Clearly, there is no equality here if the basis of evaluation is man with
man, or man with his society.
Any society which evaluates its members by their worth to itself is not
attaching value to the individual person at all, but only to his functions. When
these functions no longer serve a useful purpose, the man ceases to have any
value. This was ietzsche's philosophy and Hitler's. It is the logical philosophy
of anyone who views man apart from God. It is our modern philosophy of
education, emphasizing skill and technology, encouraging men to do rather than
be well. Against this tendency of natural man to "de-valuate" himself while
supposing he is exalting himself, the Bible could not do anything else than set
forth in clear terms these two complementary facts: that God is concerned
equally with all men and that all men belong to one family, uniquely related
through Adam to God Himself. The argument, so stated, is an argument also for
the comprehensiveness of the Table of Genesis 10. Unless it is comprehensive,
unless ultimately all mankind is in view here, and not just those nations which
Israel happened to have cognizance of, it is a chapter out of keeping with its
context. Unless the whole race is intended, the chapter's purpose is in doubt and
the message of the Bible is incomplete. We are left only with Acts 17:26 which, at
this point while assuring our hearts, does not enlighten our minds as to the fact
that it gives.
There is a negative side also to the matter of the authenticity of this historical

document. Had this Table been designed for propaganda purposes (to establish
Israel's position as of equal dignity though not sharing some of the glories of the
surrounding peoples) or had it been merely the work of some early historian
creating his own data with a comparatively free hand, then almost certainly
some device would have been adopted for deliberately setting forth not only the
high status of his own
pg.8 of 23
ancestors, but the very low status of that of his enemies. With respect to the first
tendency, one has only to read modern history books to discern how very easily
individuals of little real significance can be presented to us in such a way as to
make us take enormous pride in our heritage. There is, in fact, very little written
history which is not in part propaganda, although the author himself is often
unaware of it. The number of "firsts" claimed by some national historians for
their countrymen is quite amazing, and it is usually clear what the nationality of
the author himself is. In complete contrast, it would be difficult to prove with
certainty of what nationality the author of Genesis 10 was. We assume he was a
Hebrew. bult if the amount of attention given to any particular line that is traced
were used as a clue to his identity, he might have been a Japhethite, a Cannanite,
or even an Arab. This is remarkable and shows enormous restraint on tlre
author's part, the kind of restraint which suggests the hand of God upon hirn.
With respect to the second tendency, the belittling of one's enernies, this
chapter most assuredly would hlave been a wonderful one in which to put the
hated Amalekites in their proper place. But the Arnalekites are not even
mentioned. Of course, it might be argued that the Arnalekites did not even exist
at the tirne he wrote, a supposition which I consider highly probable. If this is
the case, this is a very early document, not a later one as Driver wouldl have had
us believe. In any case, the author could have treated the Canaanites similarly.
One further aspect of the tone of the Table is the modesty of its chronological
claims. Whereas the Babylonians ancl Egyptians in the "parallels" ?vEicll they
have preserved for tlS extend tileir genealogies to absolutely incredible lengths
in some instances occupying hundreds of thousands of years there are no such
claims rnade or implied in Genesis 10. T'he feeling which one has in reading this
chapter is that the expansion of population was quite rapid. Certainly, all is
rnost reasonable. This feature of the Table is ably summed up by Taylor Lewis
who remarked: (10)
How came this Hebrew chronology to present such an example of modesty
as compared with the extravagant claims to antiquity made by all other nations?
The Jews, doubtless, had, as men, similar national pride, leading tliem to
magnify
10 Lewis, Taylor, in J. P. Lange, Commentary on Genesis, Zondervan, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, no date, p.357.
pg.9 of 23

their age upon the earth, and run it up to thousands and myriads of years.
How is it, that the people whose actual records go back the farthest have the
briefest reckoning of all?
The only answer to this is, that while others were left to their unrestrained
fancies, this strange nation of Israel was under a providential guide in the
matter. A divine check held them back from this folly. A holy reserve, coming
from a constant sense of the divine pupilage, made them feel that "we are but of
yesterday," while the inspiration that controlled their historians directly taught
them that man had but a short time upon the earth.
They had the same motive as others to swell out their national years; that
they have not done so, is one of the strongest evidences of the divine authority of
their Scriptures.
As a matter of fact, those "parallels" that do exist elsewhere in the literature
of antiquity not only completely lack the sobriety of Genesis 10, but owe their
existence rather more to the desire to record notable conquests than to any
philanthropic philosophy. As Leupold has aptly said, (11)
o nation of antiquity has anything to offer that presents an actual parallel
to this Table of ations. Babylonian and Egyptian 1ists that seem to parallel this
are merely a record of nations conquered in war. Consequently, the spirit that
prompted the making of such lists is the very opposite of the spirit that the
Biblical list breathes.
Such records cannot in fact properly be classed as "parallels" at all. As
Marcus Dods observed,(12) "This ethnographic Table is not only the most
ancient and reliable description of the various nations and peoples, but it has no
parallel in its attempt to exhibit all the races of the earth as related to one
another."
The Structure and Purpose of the Table
The structure of things is normally related to the purpose they are intended to
serve. This applies in engineering design, and it applies in physiology. It also
applies in literature, whether as novel, poetry, legal document, or history. It
applies also to Genesis 10. This document has more than one purpose but is so
constructed that all its purposes are served equally well because of the simplicity
of its conception.
The method of course, is to present a series of names, whether of individuals,
whole tribes, or even places, as though
11. Leupold, H. C., Exposition of Genesis, Wartburg Press, Columbus, Ohio,
1942, p.358.
12. Dods, Marcus, Genesis, Clark, Edinburgh, no date, p.45.
pg.10 of 23

they were "persons" related by birth. This is done in a simple straightforward
manner, several lines being traced for several generations, here and there a
comrnent supplying additional information. As a consequence of the particular
form in which our sense of "precision" has developed in Western Culture, we
find it difficult to accept the idea that if a man founded a city or a tribe, such an
aggregate of people could still be summed up in the person of the founder, so
that they could with equal propriety be referred to as his offspring. Thus, in
verse 19, Sidon is spoken of initially as the firstborn of Canaan: whereas by
verse 19, Sidon is now clearly the city of that name. Similarly, Canaan is
mentioned in verse 6 as a son of Ham and subsequently in verse 16 as father of
several tribes who indeed, in verse 18, are referred to as his families. In the
following verses the name refers to the territory he occupied, which is
geographically defined. We think of this as a rather loose employment of the
term "son," but it is simplicity itself when it cornes to establishing origins. As
Dillmann put it: (13)
In the representation given of this fundamental idea of the relationship of
all peoples and men, each particular people is conceived of as a unity summed up
in and permeated by the influence of its ancestor.
Although Dillmann does not elaborate the implication of his observation
regarding the persistence of the character of an individual in his descendants, so
that the observation appears almost as a chance remark, it will be well in
discussing the purpose of the genealogy (in its bearing on its structure) to pursue
this implication a little further, before returrling to a more detailed examination
of the structure per se.
The point of interest here is that there is a sense in which the character of an
ancestor may for a short while, and occasionally for a very long time, perrneate
the characters of his descendants. Sir Francis Galton, (14) and others, first
applied statistical analysis for sociological data in an attempt to demonstrate
that there is such a thing as hereditary genius. It is not clear today whether such
traits are genetically linked or are the result of circumstances: for example, a
famous lawyer rnay bias his children to follow in his footsteps and give them a
headstart by his association with them, by his influence in the world, and by his
accumulated means and technical aids. The same may happen
13. Dillmann, A., Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, vol.1, T. and
T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1897, vol.1, p.315.
14. Galton, Sir Francis, Hereditary Genius, Watts, London, 1950, 379 pages.
pg.11 of 23
in the practice of medicine. Similarly, circumstances may sometimes result in a
long line of great actors. Possibly in the realm of artistic ability we have a larger
measure of genetic influence.
The idea that a "father" determines to a significant extent the character of his

descendants for several generations underlies a certain class of statements that
appear both in the Old and the ew Testaments. Jesus spoke of his bitterest
critics as "Children of Satan," or "Sons of Belial," denying emphatically their
claim to be "Children of Abraham." The very term "the Children of Israel,"
came to mean something more than the mere descendants of Jacob. The Lord
spoke of athaniel as "an Israelite indeed," having reference to his character,
not his lineage. It is important in this context to guard against the assumption
that the "children" of an ancestor will only perpetuate the undesirable elements
in his character. I believe history shows that there is such a thing as "national
character," (l5) which appears distinctly at first in a single individual and
reappears in his children and grandchildren with sufficient force to result in the
formation of a widespread behaviour pattern that thereafter tends to reinforce
and perpetuate itself as the family grows from a tribe into a nation. Where
differences in national character do seem to exist, no implication is intended that
there is any intrinsic superiority of one kind over another. We are arguing for
the existence of differences, not superiorities. In the sum, we are all much alike.
This is of fundamental importance.
The possibility that this idea is not foreign to Scripture was noted by Dr. R. F.
Grau, who, over 80 years ago, commented: (16)
The object of the document which we are considering is not so much to call
attention by these names to three individuals (Shem, Ham, Japheth) andl to
distinguish them from one another, as to point out the characteristics of the
three races and their respective natural tenclencies.
It is customary now to divide the world's present population into three racial
stocks, Caucasians (essentially, the White Man), egroids, and Mongoloids. It is
exceedingly difficult to define successfully the distinguishing characteristics of
any one of these
15. ational Character: compare, for example, Hamilton Fyfe, The Illusion of
ational Character (Watts, London, 1946, 157 pages) with many anthropological
studies of native peoples (by Margaret Mead, for example) and modern nations
(e.g., Ruth Benedict on the Japanese).
19. Grau, R. F., The Goal of the Human Race, Simpkin, Marshall, etc., London,
1892, p.115..
pg.12 of 23
three, although it might seem quite otherwise. egroids are presumably black
but the Australian aborigines are not egroid, though quite as black. The
straight black hair, the brown "slant" eyes, the epicanthic fold, and other
features commonly accepted as characteristically Mongoloid, can be observed
frequently among people who are classed as Caucasians. To repeat, although
everyone thinks it is a simple matter to distinguish the three groups -- and in
most cases they can -- it is virtually impossible to write down a foolproof
description which will clearly mark out what tribe or nation belongs within

which group. There is, however, one way in which it could be done -- especially if
we limit our view to a much earlier period in history when racial mixture had
not proceeded very far -- and this is to trace the earliest true representives of
each tribe to their known ancestors and set forth in some kind of genealogical
tree the relationships of these ancestors. Viewed in this light, the method of
Genesis 10 is probably the only valid way to go about it.
In this Table, we again meet with three groups of people, the descendants of
Shem, Ham, and Japheth. But these three groups do not correspond with the
current classification of races, for in this Table it is apparent that egroid and
Mongoloid are classed as one family, and the trilogy is reconstituted by setting
the Semitic peoples in a distinct class by themselves. So then, we have the
Japhethites who can be conveniently equated for our purposes with the
Caucasians, Indo-Europeans, or White Man; the Hamites who are held to
encompass the egroid and Mongoloid branches, i.e., the so-called colored races;
and the Shemites who comprise both the Hebrew people (ancient and modern),
the Arabs, and a few once powerful nations, such as the Assyrians and
Babylonians. This is a very sketchy outline, but it will serve for the moment until
the details of the Table can be examined more specifically.
ow, it is my firm belief that God has endowed these three groups -- which
we shal1 henceforth refer to normally as Japhetites, Hamites, and Shemites
with certain capacities and aptitudes which, when properly exercised, have made
a uniqtle contribution in the total historical developrnent of mankind and which,
when allowed to find full cooperative expression during a single epoch, have
invariably led to the emergence of a high civilization.
This subject has been explored at some length by the author
pg.13 of 23
and was the basis of an accepted Ph.D. thesis. (17) It is presented in simple
outline in Part 1, "Shem, Ham, and Japheth in Subsequent World History," and
one critical aspect of it is examined in some detail in Part IV, "The Technology
of Hamitic People."
In a nutshell my thesis is this: that mankind, considered both as individuals
and as a species Homo sapiens, has a constitution which seeks satisfaction in
three directions: (18) physically, intellectually, and spiritually. There are people
who live almost entirely for the physical; we often speak of them as "living to
eat." There are people who live almost entirely in the intellectual, who gladly
surrender a meal to buy a book. There are people to whom the things of the
spirit are completely paramount. Such people often go into permanent "retreat,"
and for a large part of Christian history they formed a class. Most of us
probably live in these three realms with approximate]y equal emphasis,
depending upon circumstances at the time.
A survey of history with this thought in mind, applied to nations or races
rather than to individuals, reveals that Japhethites have originated the great
philosophical systems; the Shemitic peoples, the great religious systems whether
true or false; and, surprising as it may seem to one not familiar with the
evidence, the Hamitic people have supplied the world with the basis of almost

every technological advance. This is not the time or place to attempt a
demonstration of this thesis, since it has been undertaken in the two Papers
mentioned above. The extent of the evidence is remarkable indeed, although all
the more so in that only in recent years has the debt of the white man to the
coloured man been recognized to any extent. ew discoveries are constantly
being made as the result of a continuing research into the origin of inventions,
and these bear out the above observation in quite unexpected ways.
When the philosophical bent, which originated with the Greeks and the
Aryans and was successively elaborated by Western Man, was finally wedded to
the technical genius of Hamitic
17. Custance, A. C., "Does Science Transcend Culture?" Ph.D. thesis, presented
to Ottawa University, 1958, 253 pp., illustrated.
18. Hugh Dryden wrote, "Man's life at its fullest is a trinity of activity physical,
mental and spiritual. Man must cultivate all three if he is not to be imperfectly
developed" ("The Scientist in Contemporary Life," Science, vol.120, 1954,
p.1054). Similarly, Viktor E. Frankl of Vienna wrote, "Man lives in three
dimensions: the somatic (physical or bodily), the mental, and the spiritual,"
(Digest of eurology and Psychiatry, Institute of Living, Hartford, Connecticut,
vol.1, 1940, p.22).
pg.14 of 23
peoples in Africa, Asia, and the ew World, there arose the modern
phenomenon of Science, enormously enlarging the fruits of this marriage. But
the tendency when the union of these two is most fruitful, has always been for a
kind of dehumanized civilization to appear. The true and necessary spiritual
component was supplied initially through the Shemites and later by their direct
spiritual descendant, the Christian Church. Without this spiritual component,
civilization is in danger of annihilating man as an individual of worth. Without
the Hamitic contribution, the contribution of Japheth led nowhere as in Greece.
Without the contribution of Japheth, the contribution of Ham stagnated as soon
as the immediate practical problems of survival had been sufficiently solved.
This kind of stagnation can be illustrated by the history of some of the great
nations of antiquity, the Egyptians, for example. These interactions are
examined elsewhere, but the important point to underscore at this juncture is
that the various contributions of the various nations and peoples do not appear
as contributions made by any one "family" unless one has the clue of these
family relationships, which Genesis 10 supplies. Given this clue, and allowing
that it is a true historical record, these three components for a high civilization --
the technological, intellectual, and spiritual suddenly appear in a new light
when it is realized which particular group of people made the most fundamental
contribution in each area. The dwelling of Japheth in the tents of Shem, that is,
the occupation by Japheth of a position originally possessed by Shem; the taking
away of a kingdom from the latter to give it to the former, all these biblical
phrases assume a new significance. In short, Genesis 10, by dividing the whole
race into three families in a way which does not concord with modern concepts

of racial groupings, is not thereby discredited but shown to be based upon a
much clearer insight into the framework of history. To my mind, there is no
question that when we see history as God sees it in its totality and at the end of
time, we shall discover that this Table was a fundamental clue to the meaning of
it: and, we would repeat, it serves this purpose because it has a structure which
does not agree with modern attempts to re-define the interrelationships of the
world's peoples.
ow a few thoughts may be in order with respect to the more mechanical
aspects of its structure. First of all, it may be noted that the division of mankind
into three basic families was not derived from traditions maintained by nations
living
pg.15 of 23
around Israel or within their ken, because these nations did not have any such
traditions. The Egyptians distinguished themselves from other peoples on the
basis of colour, classing the Asiatics as yellow, the Libyians as white, and the
egroes as black. (19) But in this Table of ations the so-called coloured peoples
are not distinguished from one another (for instance, the blacks from tle yellows)
but are classed, it my understanding of the text is correct, within a single family
group. And although it is true that the name "Ham," meaning "dark," may have
reference to the skin colour as the word "Japheth" may have reference to fair-
skinned people the principle does not hold entirely, for some, at least, of Ham's
descendants were fair. Indeed, according to Dillmanln, there were in ancient
times fair-skinned as well as the more familiar black-skinned Ethiopians. (20)
There is no indication that the Hittites vere black-skinned, and the same is
probably true of the descendants of Sidon, etc. On the other hand, the
Canaanites and the Sumerians (both descendants of Ham) refer to themselves as
''blackheaded'' people (21) a designation which seems more likely to have
reference to skin colour rather than colour of hair, since almost all people in this
area have black hair anyway; a hair-colour distinction would be meaningless.
I'm quite aware, however, that it is customary in reconstructions based upon
skeletal remains to picture the Sumerians as anything but negroid. But this is not
fatal to our theory for, as we have already noted with respect to the Australian
Aborigines, not all black-skinned people are negroids, and were we dependent
only upon skeletal remains of these Aborigines vith no living representatives to
guide us, we should have no way of knowing, that they were black-skinned at all.
The same may apply to tle Sumerians and Canaanites. There is little doubt that
the people of Sumer and of the Indus Valley culture were akin. (22) The
descriptions of the Indus Valley people in early Aryan literature indicate that
they were negroid in type. (23) The
19. Dillmann, Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, T. & T. Clark,
Edinburgh, 1897, vol.1, p.318.
20. Dillmann, ibid., p.319.
21. The Canaanites: in thle Prism of Sennacherib the Sumerians, according to
Samuel Kramer, (From the Tablets of Sumer, Falcon's Wing Press, 1956, p. 60).

Hammurabi's Code (Deimel transcript, R. 24, line 11) also refers to them as
''Blackheaded ones."
22. See, for exarmple, V. G. Childe, "India and the West Before Darius,"
Antiquity, vol.13, 1939, p.5ff.
23. Piggott, S., Prehistoric India, Pelican Books, 1950, p.261.
pg.16 of 23
Fig. 1. The probable routes of migration as the world was first peopled.
pg.17 of 23
famous little "Dancing Girl" from the Indus Valley is certainly negroid, and it is
equally evident that genes for black skin still form a large component in the gene
pool of the present Indian population. In his Races of Europe, (24) Coon has a
section with descriptive materials devoted entirely to the many racial types
which have contributed to the present population of Europe. In speaking of
gypsies and dark-skinned Mediterraneans, he includes two photographs of one
young man of clearly "negroid" appearance, and comments as follows:
Of much greater antiquity outside of India is a dark-skinned [in the photo,
almost black], black-eyed, and straight-haired Mediterranean type which
appears with some frequency in southern Iran and along the coasts of the
Persian Gulf. This young sailor from Kuwait will serve as an example. The
origin and affiliations of this type have not as yet been fully explained.
Interestingly enough, a further illustration from southern Arabia shows a
young man who, as Coon puts it, "except for his light unexposed skin colour . . .
could pass for an Australian aborigine." The use of the word "unexposed"
inevitably made me think of Ham's reaction to his exposed father. For if Ham
was dark all over, he may have expected his father was also, and his surprise at
discovering otherwise might have so disturbed him as to cause him to be
forgetful of his filial duty. At any rate, it is clear that in this area of the world,
once occupied by the Sumerians, there still remain "unaccountable" evidences of
a very dark-skinned component in the population. All these lines of evidence
lend support to the contention that the Sumerians may have themselves been a
black-skinned people.
The three families are not predicated on the basis of language, either. Again it
is perfectly true that the children of Japheth, in so far as they have given rise to
the Indo-Europeans, would seem to be a single linguistic family. The same may
be said of the Shemites. But when we come to the descendants of Ham we run
into difficulties for it appears that in historic times the Canaanites, Philistines,
and many Cushites spoke Semitic languages, while the Hittites (also Hamites,

from Heth) may have spoken an Indo-European language. The trouble with
linguistic evidence in this instance is that it really appears too late in history to
be decisive.
It has been suggested that the arrangement of the Table was dictated upon
geographical grounds: for example, that the children
24. Coon, C. S., Races of Europe, Macmillan, 1939, 739 pp., illustrated.
pg.18 of 23
of Japheth spread in one direction -- more or less to the north and west, whereas
the children of Ham tended towards the south and east, while the children of
Shem stayed more nearly at the centre. This, however, would make the
document something of a prophetic statement for such a dispersion did not occur
until sometime later unless, of course, one gives the document a late date, a
point to be considered later. There is evidence that the writer knew only that
some of Ham's descendants had entered Africa, that a large part of Shem's
descendants had settled in Arabia, and that Japheth was still not very far to the
north, though spreading along the shorelines of the Black Sea and the
Mediterranean. In fact, the picture presented indicates a Cush quite close at
hand which was not the same as the Cush later to be found in Ethiopia. Thus,
although the Table recognizes, as indeed it had to do, that some dispersion had
already taken place in which the members of each family had migrated in more
or less the same general direction, this knowledge was not the basis of the
threefold division, but rather stemmed from it.
While the writer admits that his genealogy employs not merely the names of
persons but also of places and families, even making use at times of language as
a guide, it seems pretty clear that the structure of his Table is dependent
ultimately upon a true understanding of the original relationships of the
founding fathers of each line to their more notable descendants and to one
another. To my mind, the very structure of the Table predicates this kind of
knowledge of the facts. On no other basis can one account for the circumstance
that for centuries certain statements have seemed to be clearly contrary to the
evidence, and that only as more light has appeared has the Table proved itself to
be perfectly correct where properly tested.
The use of a genealogical tree which does not slavishly demand that
individuals only are to be listed, but which allows the inclusion of cities they
founded, tribes which they grew into, and districts which they occupied,
provides a simple, straightforward, and concise method of setting forth the
Origin of ations.
The Date of the Table
We come, finally, to the question of the date of this document. It will already
be clear that, in our view, it is by no means "late" in the sense in which Higher
Critics have understood the term. If it was composed many centuries after the
events described, it has avoided anachronisms and certain errors, which

pg.19 of 23
would make it a masterpiece of forgery. So carefully has the supposed forger
avoided these kinds of errors that it would seem far simpler and more
reasonable to assume he was a contemporary of the terminal events which he
describes in the chapter.
Among the lines of evidence which strongly support an early date for this
document, the following carry great weight: (1) the small development of
Japhetic peoples, (2) the position of Cush at the head of the Hanitic family, (3)
the mention of Sidon but not of Tyre, (4) the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah
as still existing, (5) the great amount of space given to Joktanites, (6) the
discontinuance of the Hebrew line at Peleg, and (7) the absence of any reference
to Jerusalem by name.
Let us consider these seriatim.
(1) The small development of Japhetic peoples. The descendants of Japheth
were great colonizers and explorers spreading around the Mediterranean and
ulp into Europe, and toward the east into Persia and the Indus Valley at a quite
early date. Yet this Table views them as settling only in Asia Minor and along
the imrnediate Mediterranean coast line.
Furthermore, Javan receives notice, from whom undoubtedly the Ionians are
to be traced, but we find no mention of Achaeans or Dorians associated with
him, nor of Phrygians with Ashkenaz. Yet one would only have to shift the time
setting by a few centuries to make such omissions inconceivable. Indeed,
according to Sir William Ramsay, (25) Homer, who wrote somewhere about 820
B.C. or even earlier (Sayce says 1000 B.C.), evolved a jumble of old and new
when he produced Askanios as an ally of Priam and Troy, and an enemy of the
Achaeans. Either the writer was quite ignorant of subsequent events because he
lived before them, or he was extraordinarily careful to avoid the slightest taint of
anachronism. For example, he implies that Javan, a son of Japheth, inhabited
Asia Minor and the neighbouring Greek coastlands in very early times. Yet there
is, I believe, no trace of these old Ionians during the "historical" times of Greece
and Israel, but only the survival of the name in one of the Greek states.
(2) The position of Cush at the head of the Hamitic farnily. It has been
customary to date this Table as late as the sixth century B.C. But no writer at
such a time would have referred to any part of Babylonia as the land of Cush,
since by then Cush
25. Ramsay, Sir William, Asianic Elements in Greek Civilization, Murray,
London, 1927.
pg.20 of 23
was used exclusively for a quite different region, i.e., Ethiopia. If the writer had
been attempting a piece of historic fiction, he would surely have added
parenthetically that he was not referring to Ethiopia in the present context. As it
was, he evidently foresaw not the slightest confusion in the reader's mind since

the Ethiopian Cush did not exist.
(3) The mention of Sidon but not of Tyre. The onission of Tyre among the
states of Palestine is very significant, for similar communities such as Gerar and
Gaza, among others, are carefully noted.
Tyre had a quite dramatic history. Founded somewhere about the 13th
century B.C., by the 10th century she was mistress of commerce under Hiram. In
the 8th century she fell under Assyrian domination, was beseiged by the
Babylonians early in the 6th century, and finally came under the Persians in 588
B.C. In 332 B.C. she was once more utterly subdued by Alexander in a classic
campaign which forrns part of the subject of a separate Doorway Paper. (26)
In other words, from the 13th century on, this city-state made a considerable
noise in the world, whereas Sidon made comparatively little. Indeed, those who
were anywhere near contemporary with her, among the prophets, spent much
time denouncing her (cf. Ezekiel 27, for example). The two cities, Tyre and
Sidon, were constantly referred to together, and in that order and Arvad (also
rnentioned in the Table) faded into insignificance before the splendour of Tyre.
The omission of Tyre in this early Hebrew etlnography clearly implies that
she had not yet risen to a position of importance if she existed at all. This surely
indicates that at least this section of the Table was written prior to the exploits of
Hiram in the 10th century B.C.
(4) The reference to Sodom and Gomorrah as still existing. In view of the
dramatic destruction of these two cities of the plain of Jordan, it is inconceivable
that a late writer would mention them as in existence at that time and not make
some attempt to inform the reader of what happened to them subsequently. It is
surely simpler to believe that he was writing prior to their complete
disappearance, an event which long antedates Hiram of Tyrian fame and must
be set probably somewhere around the 17th century B.C.
26. Custance, Arthur, "Archaeological Confirmations of Genesis", Part IV in
Hidden Things of God's Revelation, vol.7 of The Doorway Papers Series.
pg.21 of 23
(5) The great amount of space given to the Joktanites. If one were to pick up
earlier history books dealing with the settlement of orth America by the White
Man and his constant exchanges in trade and in war with American Indian
tribes, one would continually meet with such tribal names as Ojibway, Huron,
Seneca, Cree, Mohawk, and Cherokee. But to readers of the present day only a
few of these would strike a chord of recognition. One suspects that the Joktanites
were analogously both numerous and important in early Middle East history,
particularly the history of Arabia. But within a few centuries, at the most, some
circumstance had either reduced many of them to insignificant status as tribes,
or so united them as to wash out their individual tribal existences. If a Jewish
writer of the 6th century had strung off a list of names like this (even if he could
have recovered them with any certainty), it is likely his words would have had
very little impact or meaning for his readers. On the other hand, at a much
earlier time, it might have been analogous to the earliest writings in America, of

the Jesuits, for example, or of Catlin. That they have a genuine base in history is
borne out by the names of districts or cities in Arabia which seem clearly to be
recollections of much earlier settlements. When one contrasts the detail in this
portion (verses 6 20) with the sparse information given about the line of Shem
througll Peleg, it is difficult to argue with any force that the Table was a piece of
Jewish propaganda favouring their own antecedents.
(6) The discontinuance of the Hebrew line at Peleg. In view of the great
importance attached to the person of Abraham as the father of the Jewish
people, it is certainly extraordinary that a writer purporting to present an
account of the origin of nations, a writer remember, who is assumed to be
himself a Jew, should have neglected entirely to indicate where Abraham
originated. Considering that Abraham by almost any reckoning must have been
a figure of some importance and well known before the destruction of Sodom
and Gomorrah, the only conclusion one can draw from this is that the writer did
not know of his existence because he was not yet alive or had as yet achieved no
prominence.
The impression is reinforced further by consideration of the fact that
although Palestine is treated in some detail, cities and territories being clearly
delineated, there is a total absence of any mention of the Hebrews. If the object
of the Table was to supply the Jewish people with proof of an equally impressive
pg.22 of 23
antiquity with the more prominent nations around them like the Egyptians
(Mizriam, verse 6) and Assyria (Asshur, verse 22), would there not have been
some mention of the glories of their own nation under Solomon?
(7) And this brings us to one final observation, namely, the reference to the
Jebusites without any mention to the city under the more familiar name
Jerusalem. This Table occupies itself with the names of individuals, the cities
they founded, the tribes they gave rise to, and the territories they settled in. Of
these categories the names of cities form a very prominent part. Yet, while the
Jebusites are mentioned, their capital city is not singled out specifically, and the
circumstance surrounding its change of name to become Jerusalem receives no
mention whatever. This would be analogous to a history of early England in
which the author, while listing many settlements of importance, makes no
mention of London or Winchester. A Canadian historian living before the
formation of Upper Canada, if he should refer to a settlement at the mouth of
the Humber River in Ontario but make no mention to "Muddy York," would be
dated very early by Canadian standards. If he had casually mentioned that the
people of this settlement were called "Muddy Yorkers," one would be more
tempted to place him somewhere around A.D. 1800. However, if he made no
mention by way of parenthesis that the town of York later became tbe city of
Toronto, one would still assume that he was ignorant of the fact and died before
the change was made. This would be particularly the case if he had in the
meantime made careful reference to other towns and cities of prominence in
early Canadian history.
It seems to me that the total absence of any direct reference here to a city

specifically known as Jebus, and even more importantly to the same city as
Jerusalem, is a clear indication that the writer lived only long enough to
complete a record of events exactly as we have them in this ancient Table. At the
very latest, if the above arguments carry weight, he cannot have survived very
much beyond the 20th or l9th century B.C.
We turn in the next chapter to a study of certain representative portions of
this ethnographic Table in order to show how far it can serve as a guide to
ancient history, since it supplies information and vital links that are not
otherwise available in our present state of knowledge.
Chapter 2
THE FAMILY OF JAPHETH
THE GREAT majority of those who read this chapter will belong within the
Indo-European family of nations, of whom it can be shown that the "father" was
Japheth. (27) It is our intention, therefore, to spend more time tracing the
descendants of Japheth
27. GE ERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Encyclopedias:
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, 5 vols.,
Chicago, Howard-Severance, 1915, under Table of ations.
Imperial Bible Dictionary, edited by P. Fairbairn, 2 vols. London, Blackie and
Son, 1866, under individual names.
Popular and Critical Bible Dictionary, edited by S. Fallows, 3 vols., Chicago,
Howard-Severance, 1912, under individual names.
Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, edited by W.C.Piercy,1 vol., London,
Murray, 1908, under individual names.
A Dictionary of the Bible, edited by J. D. Davis, Philadelphia, Westminster
Press, 1931, under individual names.
Bible Cyclopedia, A. R. Fausset, Toronto, Funk and Wagnalls, no date, under
individual names.
Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, John Kitto, 2 vols., Edinburgh, Adam and
Charles Black, 1845, under individual names.
Works dealing specifically with the Table:
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1. Chapter 6.
Rawlinson, George, The Origin of ations, Scribner, ew York, 1878, 272
pages.
Rouse, Martin L., "The Bible Pedigree of the ations of the World," Pt. 1,
Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol.38, 1906, p. 123-153; and "The
Pedigree of the ations," Pt. 2, Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol.39,
1907, p.83-101.
Sayce, A. H., The Races of the Old Testament, London, Religious Tract
Society, 1893, 180 pages.

Useful information will be found at the appropriate places in commentaries and
editions of the Hebrew text by Bullinger, Cook, Dillmann, Dod, Driver, Ellicott,
Gray and Adams, Greenwood, Jamieson, Kalisch, Lange, Leupold, Lloyd,
Schrader, Skinner, Snaith, Spurrel, Whitelaw.
Archaeological works such as those by George Barton, J. P. Free, M. R. Unger,
T. G. Pinches, R. D. Wilson, and A. H. Sayce.
pg 1 of 21
than that of Ham or Shem, partly because, as a result of labours by others in the
past, we have considerably more information about this particular line, and
partly because what can be said about Hamites and Shemites is not only less in
quantity, but has perhaps less intrinsic interest for most of us. evertheless,
there are certain portions of the Hamitic line which we shall study a little more
closely because they contribute light upon the issue of whether this Table of
ations is truly comprehensive or merely selective, encompassing all mankind or
only a representative portion.
Japheth:
To begin with, it is well known that Japheth's name has been preserved in
both branches of the Aryan family, which very early split into two major
divisions and settled in Europe and India. The Greeks, for example, trace
themselves back to Japetos, a name which without doubt is the same, and
significantly, according to Skinner, has no meaning in Greek. (28) It does have a
meaning, however, in Hebrew. In Aristophanes' The Clouds, (29) Iapetos is
referred to as one of the Titans and the father of Atlas. He was considered by the
Greeks not merely as their own ancestor but the father of the human race.
According to their tradition, Ouranos and Gaia (i.e., Heaven and Earth) had six
sons and six daughters, but of this family only one - Japetos by name - had a
human progeny. He married Clymene, a daughter of Okeanos, who bore him
Prometheus and three other sons. Prometheus begat Deukalion who is, in effect,
the " oah" of the Greeks, and Deukalion begat Hellen who was the reputed
father of the Hellenes or Greeks. If we proceed a little further, we find that
Hellen himself had a grandson named Ion; and in Homer's poetry the rank and
file of the Greeks were known as Ionians.
Meanwhile, the Indian branch of this Aryan family also traced themselves
back to the same man. In the Indian account of the Flood, (30) " oah" is known
as Satyaurata, who had three sons, the eldest of whom was named Jyapeti. The
other two were called Sharma and C'harma (Shem and Ham?). To the first he
allotted all the regions north of the Himalayas and to Sharma he gave the
country to the south. But he cursed C'harma, because when the old monarch
was accidentally inebriated with strong liquor made from fermented rice,
C'harma had laughed at him.
28. Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis,
Edinburgh, T.& T. Clark, 1930, p.196.

29. Aristophanes, The Clouds, Roger's translation, line 998.
30. See J. H. Titcomb, "Ethnic Testimonies to the Pentateuch," Transactions of
the Victoria Institute, vol.6, 1872, p.249-253.
pg.2 of 21
Two further brief observations may be made at this point. The first is that the
Greeks recollected three brothers, for Homer makes eptune say: (31)
There are three of us, Brothers, all sons of Cronos and Rhea: Zeus, Myself,
and Hades, the King of the Dead. Each of us was given domain when the world
was divided into three parts.
The second is that in primitive Aryan speech the title Djapatischta (32) means
"chief of the race," a title which looks suspiciously like a corruption of the
original form of the name "Japheth." Apart from these few notices, we know
little else about Japheth except that, in Hebrew, his name probably means
"fair."
But of his sons, we know much more. They are given in Genesis 10 as Gomer,
Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.
Gomer
Considered ethnologically, it appears that Gomer was by far the most
important of the sons. To judge from such ancient historians as Herodotus,
Strabo, and Plutarch, Gomer's family settled first to the north of the Black Sea,
giving their name in slightly modified form to that district known as Cimmeria,
later shortened to Crimea, (33) (the Arabs, by a transposition of letters, having
given it the name Krim). These people appear to have multiplied rapidly towards
the west, but a considerable portion of this ancient family was driven out by the
Scythians and took refuge in Asia Minor during the 7th century B.C. Their
subsequent history is known in some detail from Assyrian records where they
appear as the Kimirraa, by which name they were already known in the time of
Homer.
In concert with the Minni, the Medes, the people of Sepharad, and other
populations whose territory they had already over-run, they attacked the
northern frontier of the Assyrian Empire. But in 677 B.C. their leader, Teupsa,
was defeated by Esarhaddon and some were driven eastward where they
overthrew the old Kingdom of the Elippi and, according to some, built Ecbatana.
Others went westward into Asia Minor again. Here they sacked Sinope and
Antandros (which they held for a
31. Homer, Iliad, translated by E. V. Rieu, Penguin, Classics edition, 1953, Book
xv, 276.
32. Dods, M., The Book of Genesis, Edinburgh, Clark, no date, p.43.
33. Wright, Charles, The Book of Genesis in Hebrew, London, Williams and
orgate, 1859, p.35.

pg.3 of 21
hundred years), and finally invaded Lydia. The Lydian king, the famous Gyges
(687 653 B.C.), (34) sent to ineveh for help but was slain in battle before help
arrived and his capital city, Sardis, was captured by the invading army. Gyges'
successor, Ardys, was able to exterminate or drive most of them out of the
country. A recollection of their brief ascendency in the area seems to be borne
out by the fact that the Armenians referred to Cappadocia as Gamir, (35)
although it is not certain whether they intended by this the name of the land or
merely the inhabitants. Eusebius, in referring to Gomer says, "whence the
Cappadocians." (36)
Some of the tribe of Gomer either remained in the country or subsequently
returned, and others went west as far as France and Spain and later still into
the British Isles, as we shall see. According to Josephus, (37) the branch which
returned to Asia Minor came to be known as the Galatians. It may be pointed
out that although the form "Galatia" seems far removed from "Gomer", it is
possible, etymologically, to derive it from the more ancient form of the name.
The middle consonant of the word GoMeR can readily be replaced by a W or a
U, so that G-M-R can become G-W-R, or G-U-R. It is possible that the ancient
site known as Tepe Gawra is a recollection of one of these forms. A further
change may take place in the substitution of L for the terminal R. This
substitution is very common and may be observed, for example, where castrum
in Latin becomes "castle" in English. We thus have the following series: G-M-R
becoming G-U-R, becoming G-U-L. The final form is to be observed as the more
familiar Gaul, where, it will be remembered, some of the descendants of Gomer
settled. And the connection between the Gauls, the Galatians, and the Celts are
all well established historically. Indeed, according to Haydn, (38) the Gauls were
called Galati or Celtae by the Romans. Furthermore, Roman historians claim
that these people came originally from Asia Minor and settled throughout
Europe -- in Spain (Galicia), in France (Gaul) and in Britain (Celts).
34. Herodotus (Book 1, chap. 8) gives an interesting story (with a moral) on how
Gyges became King of Lydia.
35. Skinner, John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis,
Edinburgh, T.& T. Clark, 1930,, p.196.
36. Eusebius, Chronicon (Armenian version), edited by I.B.Aucher, vol.1, p.95
(Gimmeri-Cappadocians) and vol.2, p.12 (Gomer, "out of whom the
Cappadocians").
37. Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, Book1, Chapter 6.
38. Vincent, B., Haydn's Dictionary of Dates, London, Ward, Lock, and Bowden,
21st. edition, 1895, p.455.
pg.4 of 21
It appears further that many Gomerites formed the restless "barbarians,"
against whom the Assyrians had to defend themselves, later hiring themselves

out as mercenaries who, when they had been paid off, were settled as farmers in
that part of Asia Minor known as Galatia.
In discussing Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, Dean Farrar observes that: (39)
It must be regarded as certain that the Galatae were Celts, and not only
Celts but Cymric Celts. . . .
Every trait of their character, every certain phenomenon of their language,
every proved fact of their history, shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the
Galatae or Gauls were Celts; and it is most probable that the names of Galatae
and Celtae are etymologically identical.
Kalisch identifies them with the Chomari, a nation in Bactriana near the
Oxus, mentioned by Ptolemy. (40)
That these people should be referred to not merely as Celts but Cymric Celts
is a beautiful illustration of how a very ancient name may persist, for the word
"Cymric" (without its patronymic termination, C-M-R) is nothing less than the
more ancient form "Gomer", very slightly modified. This modified form is still
with us in the district of England known as Cumberland. Once more we have a
slight variant rendering of the original name by the introduction of the
consonant B, so that Gomer-land becomes Cumber-land. To one not familiar
with etymological changes, the introduction of the B may seem strange, but it is
by no means uncommon and is to be observed, for example, where the Latin
form numerous becomes "number" in English.
It would appear that the descendants of Gomer were a restless bunch, much
of the time on the move and extremely war-like. Whereever they settled, they
tended to form a kind of military aristocracy and when they moved, there was
scarcely any stopping them. In 390 B.C., it was these nomads who appeared
outside Rome and sacked the city. Meanwhile, in Italy they came to be known as
the Umbrians, in which name we once more may discern the original form
"Gomer", though with the initial guttural presumably replaced by a hard H and
then dropped entirely, while the B was inserted in exactly the same way as we
have observed in the word "Cumberland".
39. Farrar, F. W., Life and Works of St. Paul, vol.1, London, Cassell, p.466.
40. Kalisch, M. M., A Historical and Critical Commentary of the Old Testament,
pg.5 of 21
The record is not complete yet, however, for Ireland was in ancient times
known as Ivernia, and the Irish Sea as Hibernicus. Ivernia has lost the initial
guttural and the M has become V; Hibernicus replaces the guttural with an H
and the M with a B. All these changes are commonly observed within the Indo-
European family of languages. For example, the simple form "Paul" in Spanish
may appear as Pablo. Also, the Septuagint of Genesis 10:28 replaces the Ebal of
Hebrew with Eual. Again, icolaus appears in the Hebrew prayer book (Aboda
Zara) as icholabus.

Thus Gomer's children and his children's children went far up into Europe,
where, despite their separation both in time and distance, the name of their
ancient forebear was preserved among them. Indeed, there is even the possibility
that the very name of Germany preserves for us Gomer in slightly inverted form,
although the claim made by certain German historians that the Teutons
represent the pure Gomeric line (a claim which they held accounted for the
warlike nature of the German people) is highly improbable and is challenged by
virtually every ethnologist of modern times.
Just to complete the record, it may be further observed that the Welsh people
refer to themselves as Cymri, and in Denmark we find a port originally called
Cimbrishavn which, in our speech, would be Cimbri's Haven. Jutland also was
known as Chersonesus Cimbrica. It would appear that scarcely any part of
Europe was not, at one time or another, settled by the descendants of Gomer,
and some areas -- notably France and the British Isles were once inhabited by a
homogeneous people speaking a language akin to modern Kumric.
Ashkenaz
umerous and varied have been identifications of the people descended from
Ashkenaz, son of Gomer. Sayce, (41) for example, was inclined to believe that
because the name was coupled with Ararat and Minni (Jeremiah 51:27), they
should be identified with Asguza of the Assyrian monuments. Maspero
maintained that they were to be equated with the classical Scythians. (42) Almost
without exception, commentators agree that they are to be placed to the north of
the Fertile Crescent which encompasses
41. Sayce, A. H., The Races of the Old Testament, London, Religious Tract
Society, 1893, 180 pages.
42. Maspero, Sir G.C.C., History of the Ancient Peoples of the Classic East, vol.3
in The Passing of the Empires, SPCK (Society for the Propagation of Christian
Knowledge), 1900, p.343.
pg.6 of 32
Palestine and Mesopotamia. They point out that there still exist recollections of
the name Ashkenaz in Lake Ascanius and a neighbouring people who came to be
known as the Askaeni. (43) These people lived in the province of Phrygia and
seem to be mentioned by Homer in the Iliad (Book II, 2, 863 and 13, 793). Peake
mentions two lakes and a river in the district which bear the old name in
modified forms and notes that Ashken still appears today as an Armenian
proper name. (44) One of these two lakes in the eastern part of Bithynia near
icea is mentioned by Strabo (see 7, 389) and is now known as Lake Iznik a
broken-down form of Ashkenaz, in which an inversion has taken place. In
Bithynia on the borders of the Sea of Marmora there was a Lake Ascenia; in the
southwestern Phrygia there is another lake similarly named; and midway
between them lay Troas, in whose royal family we find, in the time of the Trojan
War, a Prince named Ascenius. It is possible that these also may reflect the name

Ashkenaz.
As the descendants of Ashkenaz moved northward they found descendants of
Tiras (Thracians, as Josephus affirms) already occupying the Plains of Thrace,
with a kind of rearguard body in Bithynia, if we are to judge by allusions in
Herodotus and Strabo. This circumstance probably contributed to their taking a
more northerly route into west central Russia, instead of following Gomer
westward into Europe, arriving in due time in what is now Germany. The Jewish
commentators have customarily associated Ashkenaz and the Germans,
probably with justification. (45) From there as they multiplied, they moved
further north into Ascania which, along with the islands of Denmark, came to be
known to later Latin writers as the "Islands of Scandia" Scandinavia. (46) The
introduction of an epenthetic D crept into the form Ascania in much the same
way the Latin tenere appears in French as tendre.
It is curious how some form of the name Ashkenaz has been preserved in this
area throughout history. The inhabitants of the ancient state of Dessau have long
claimed descent from Ashkenaz, and one of their rulers in the 12th century, who
for a while held the Saxon estates of Henry the Lion (founder of the
43. Sayce, A. H., under Askenaz in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary,
London, Murray, 1908.
44. Rawlinson, G., The Origin of ations, ew York, Scribner, 1878, p.181.
45. Hertz, J. H., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs: Genesis, Oxford, Oxford
University Press, 1929, p.88, note 3.
pg.7 of 21
House of Brunswick), added to his baptismal name Bernard that of Ascenius,
declaring that his ancestors had come from Lake Ascenius in Bithynia.
Meanwhile, far away on the northern borders of Media, a rearguard of the
same family remained behind. These people were allies of their neighbours, the
Medes, and caused much trouble to Esarhaddon of Assyria. In classical times
they dwelt near Rhagae, which according to Josephus, (47) was a city of some
size, near the centre of the southern shore of the Caspian Sea. At that point, a
chain of mountains begins, and runs eastward along the shore and beyond it,
forming a natural boundary to the territory of the Bactrians and the Saki. This
chain of mountains was referred to by Ammianus Mercellinus (the Emperor
Julian's librarian and historian who was writing about A.D. 350), as the
Ascanimian Mountains. (48) These wild tribes, referred to by Strabo as the Saki,
(49) gained possession of Bactriana on the one side of the Caspian and occupied
the best districts of Armenia on the other side. These occupied territories "took
from them the name of Sakasene," so Strabo tells us.
Thus we know about a range of mountains called in classic times the
Ascanimians, around which dwelt descendants of Ashkenaz. At the outset of the
Christian era, a little to the north of them, cut out of the neighbouring kingdom
of Armenia and just south of the Caucasus Mountains, there was a country
called Sakasene. It is almost certain that these people, the Sakasenoi, were also

descendants of Ashkenaz. And it appears that some time after the Christian era
began, a wave of this family of Ashkenaz, calling themselves Sakasenoi, or more
briefly Sachsen, marched northward through the Caspian Gates into European
Scythia and thence onward with the tide of their German kinsmen, the Goths,
into northern Europe where the country they occupied has borne the simple title
"Sachsen".
When Tacitus, writing about A.D. 100, lists the peoples of Germany in his
own day (although he included in his account Denmark and Sweden where he
says dwelt the Cymbri, and also included the Angli), he made no mention
whatever of the Sachsens or as we more familiarly know them, Saxons. These
people appear first in history when Caransius was appointed,
47. Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, Book1, Chapter 6, section 1.
48. On this see M. L. Rouse, "Bible Pedigree of the ations of the World,"
Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol.38, 1906, p.149.
49. Strabo, I:i:10, and I:iii:21 and XI:viii:4.
pg.8 of 21
about A.D. 280, to guard the eastern British coasts against pirates, at which time
he was given the title "Count of the Saxon Shore." (50)
We may believe, then, that Japheth's grandson, Ashkenaz, gave rise to a large
component of the earliest settlers in Germany and Scandinavia, and left en route
many memorials of the ancestral name, besides providing for us a tribe of people
who played an exciting part in English history.
Riphath
Little seems to have been discovered that could be related to the name of this
son of Gomer. Several proposals have been made for some districts in Asia
Minor. Dr. J. Pye Smith (51) suggests, for example, Rifou east of the Black Sea
and the Riphaean Mountains mentioned in ancient geographies by Strabo,
Virgil, Pliny, and others. C. R. Conder (52) mentions a people living eastward of
the Black Sea named the Rhibii. He also suggests the Riphaeans were later
known as Raphlagonians, whom Josephus identifies as the descendants of
Riphath. In the Popular and Critical Biblical Encyclopedia, the first map at the
end of Vol. 3 shows the ancient world and the supposed position of the
descendants of oah. There is no authority behind this map other than certain
suppositions based upon an intelligent examination of the biblical evidence, but
it may be noted that the centre of Europe is occupied by Riphath. The
conjunction of the word "Europe" on the map with the name Riphath prompted
the question whether there could have been some connection between the two.
The name Europe is generally derived from the legend of Europa, but since
dictionaries of classical mythology acknowledge that the etymology of Europus is
uncertain, the possibility still remains that, if we could reach far enough back
into history, we would find that the name was originally Riphath. Another
suggestion has also been made, that the name reappears in the name

"Carpathians". There are also the Carpates, called Alpes Bastarnicae, which
separate Dacia from Sarmatia.
Togarmah
The people named after Togarmah, another son of Gomer,
50. On this whole aspect of the problem, see also Martin L. Rouse,"Bible
Pedigree of the ations of the World," Transactions of the Victoria Institute,
vol.38, 1906, p.149-150.
51. Smith, J. Pye, "Dispersion of ations," Popular and Critical Bible
Commentary, vol.2, edited by S. Fallows, Chicago, Howard-Severance, 1912,
p.1213.
52. Conder, C. R., "Riphath," Murrays' Illustrated Bible Dictionary, London,
Murray, 1908, p.749.
pg.9 of 21
are mentioned twice in Ezekiel. We read about them first at the fairs in Tyre,
trading in horses and mules (Ezekiel 27:14), and later in a campaign with Gomer
against Palestine (Ezekiel 38:6). either passage does much towards fixing their
homeland, but both agree with the hypothesis that the people intended are the
ancient inhabitants of Armenia. And this has some support from national
tradition and etymological theory. The Armeneian traditions assign as their own
ancestor a man named Hiak who, they claim, was the "son of Targom, a
grandson of oah." (53)
By an inversion of letters, the Armenians came to be referred to as the House
of Targom, and Jewish writers often refer to the Turks as Togarmah. It should
be noted also that the Black Sea, which is northwest of Armenia, was also
sometimes referred to as Togarmah. Strabo (54) seems to have taken it for
granted that the Armenians were intended here, and Herodotus (55) mentions
their connection with horse breeding. Josephus (56) says that Togarmah is the
father of the people known as Thrugrammeans, whom the Greeks identified
with the Phrygians. Professor F.W. Schultz (57) points out that, according to the
Jewish Targums, Togarmah was the father of Germany. And there are some
who believe that the word Germania itself is formed out of the older name
Togarmah, with the first syllable lost in the process. If this is so, then there can
be no connection between "Gomer" and "Germany," as proposed previously.
Magog
Very little is known about the identity of the people descended from Magog.
It is not even clear whether the name is the original form or compounded of two
elements, ma and Gog. The prefix ma was often added in antiquity to a personal
name, meaning "the place of". Magog would then mean "the place of Gog", i.e.,
the territory of Gog.
According to Chamberlain, (58) the prefix ma means "earth" in Magyar and

Estonia and, in the form maa, it bears the same significance in Finnic. In
Cuneiform, the sign for ma could be understood as an enclosure or an area of
ploughed ground, two
53. Armenian tradition: see Historia Armenae, Moses Chorenensis, London,
1736, 1.4, section 9-11.
54. Strabo, XI:xvii:9.
55. Herodotus, VII. 40.
56. Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chap. 6, section I.
57. Schultz, F.W., "Gomer," Religious Encyclopedia, vol.2, edited by Philip
Schaff, ew York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1883, p.889.
58. Chamberlain, A. G., "The Eskimo Race and Language," Canadian Institute,
vol.6, 3rd series, 1887-1888, p.326.
pg.10 of 21
different diagrams being used at different times. A number of ancient names
appear with and without the prefix ma. According to Lloyd, (59) the two forms
Chin and Machin both occur for China. Conder (60) interpreted the form
Magan (signifying the region of Sinai) as a compound meaning "the place of
strength", "walled land", or some such descriptive term.
The ordinary word in Assyrian and Babylonian for "land" or "country" is
matu, often abbreviated to mat. And "the country of 'Gutu'," according to
Sayce, (61) appears in Assyrian inscriptions as Mat Gugi. He considered,
therefore, that Gog is the Gutu of the Assyrian inscriptions and the Gyges of the
Greeks (which I think is very doubtful, being far too late), the compound form
"Magog" meaning the "land of Gog," i.e., Mat Gugi.
There is some indication that Marco Polo (62) understood the word
"Mungul" to be a broken-down form of the word "Magog", since he came
across an association of names "Ung" and "Mungul", which were considered
the counterparts of Gog and Magog. He appears to be referring to a time prior
to the migration of the Tartars. It is just conceivable that the word "Mongol"
was originally attached to a people descended from Gog and Indo-European
stock. Curiously, small pockets of people have been reported still retaining an
Indo-European form of language in areas now completely dominated by
Mongols. (63)
Bochart (64) derived the word "Caucasus" from a compound form of "Gog"
and "Chasan", meaning "the stronghold of Gog". According to Josephus, the
descendants of Gog were later known as the Scythians, whom he says were
otherwise known as Magogites. These people subsequently formed the greater
part of Russian stock. Mention is made of Gog in Ezekiel (38:2) as "the chief
prince of Meshech and Tubal." It may be observed that rosh, which in this
passage is translated "chief prince", signified the inhabitants of Scythia. From it
the Russians
59. Lloyd, J., An Analysis of the First Eleven Chapters of the Book of Genesis,
London, Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1869, p.114.

60. Condor, C. R., commenting on a paper by T. G. Pinches, " otes on Some
Recent Discoveries in Assyriology," Transactions of the Victoria Institute,
vol.26, 1897, p.180.
61. Sayce, A. H. The Races of the Old Testament, London, Religious Tract
Society, 1893, p.45.
62. Marco Polo, Travels of Marco Polo, ew York, Library Publications, no
date, p.87.
63. I regret that I have mislaid the source of this observation. It was given in a
paper in the Transactions of the Victoria Institute.
64. Bochart, "Gog and Magog" Chambers Encyclopedia, London, Chambers,
1868, vol.4, p.813.
pg.11 of 21
derive their name. Russia was known as Muskovi until the time of Ivan the
Terrible, a name undoubtedly connected with Meshech. The Russian Empire
was created by the Muskovite princes who were the first Grand Dukes of
Moscow, but it was Ivan (1533 1584) who really consolidated and extended that
great Empire until it reached the White Sea on the north and the Caspian Sea in
the south and was thenceforth called Russia.
As stated at the outset, there is very little certainty about any of this but such
fragments as we do have point in the same general direction, i.e., the area
commonly referred to today as Russia has a population that is probably to be
traced back largely to Gog.
Madai and Javan
The part that these play in early history is very well defined and can be stated
without the complications that are attached to most of the previous names.
It is reasonably clear that the Madai appear subsequently as the Medes and
Javan gave rise to the Ionians. In his book, Races of the Old Testament, Sayce
says that the Medes claimed a relationship with the Aryans of north India, and
on the Persian monuments (for example, the Behistun inscriptions) they are
referred to as the "Mada" from which the Greek form, Medes, comes. (65)
There is no doubt that Persia was their general area of initial settlement. In
Assyrian inscriptions they are mentioned as the Ma-da-ai. (66)
ow it has already been observed that before there arose a complete
separation of the various nationalities -- Medes, Persians, Greeks, Celts, etc. the
Japhethites were first divided into two major bodies. One of these comprised the
ancestors of the Indians and Persians, whereas the second was the aggregate of
those tribes which afterwards composed the nations of Europe. Thus the word
"Indo-European" well sums up our ethnological origins.
That the separation of these two groups had probably preceded the smaller
division into nationalities is suggested by the early rise of names distinguishing
these two great divisions. The ancestors of the Indo-Persians claimed for
themselves alone

65. Behistun Inscriptions: Records of the Past, London, Bagster, 1873, vol.1,
p.111, para.1, section 6. In the original, Mada appears in the English translations
as Media.
66. Spurrell, G. J., otes on the Book of Genesis, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1896,
p.97.
pg.12 of 21
the old title, "Aryas", and gave to the other body the name, "Yavanas", (67) a
word which may possibly be related to our word "Young", although, to my
mind, it is clearly a recollection of the name Javan. Thus Javan and Madai, in a
manner of speaking, may stand collectively for the two branches of the Indo-
European family.
Orientals seem to have used the term Yavan for the Greek race as a whole.
The Assyrians called the Greeks of Cyprus the "Yavnan". The Persians refer to
the Greeks of Asia Minor and the Aegean Islands as the "Yuna". The terms
"Greek" and "Hellene", "Achaean", and "Dorian" seem to have been unknown
in Asia, according to Rawlinson. (68)
In the days when Egyptian monarchs of the IVth Dynasty were erecting their
pyramids, the Mediterranean was already known as the "Great Circle of the
Uinivu", (69) which is equated by some with Javan.
Larned suggests that the Italian peninsula was occupied by peoples of a stock
who had travelled into Greece, later crossing the Apennines and spreading
southward along the western coast. (70) It is evident that in the name "Javan"
we have a very early reference to the basic stock out of which Greece, and
perhaps part of Italy, was first settled, for the Greeks in later periods used other
patronymics to refer to themselves. And it would seem, on the other hand, that in
the Medes we have an equally early reference to those who settled India, since in
Genesis 10 there is no mention, for example, of the Persians who in later records
were nearly always associated with the Medes. Indeed, as with the Greeks, whose
more ancient name, Ionians, has long since disappeared, so in modern times the
word "Persia" has remained but the name "Madai" has disappeared. What we
have is a general term for those who became Indians, Medes, and Persians.
Elishah
The number of possible identifications of the descendants of this son of Javan
is considerable. Most of them are probably correct. For example, it is quite
generally agreed that the
67. Keary, C.F., Outlines of Primitive Belief Among the Indo-European Races,
ew York, Scribner's Sons, 1882, p.163ff.
68. Rawlinson, G., The Origin of ations, ew York, Scribner, 1878,, p.173.
69. Sayce, A. H., The Higher Criticism and the Verdict of the Monuments,
London, S.P.C.K., (Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge), 1895,
p.20.
70. Larned, J. ., A ew Larned History, Springfield, Massachusetts, ichols,

1923, vol.6, p.4636.
pg.13 of 21
more familiar "Hellas" is a corrupted form of an original "Elishah" and,
according to Rawlinson, (71) from about the time of the Persian War, Hellas
came to be a name commonly applied to the Greeks as a whole.
Another form of this ancient name is believed, by many authorities, to be
"Aioleis" ( GREEK ), i.e., the Aeolians. This view was held also by Josephus.
(72) The Jerusalem Talmud, the Midrash, and the Targums read for Elishah the
form "Elis" or "Eolis", although scholars such as Skinner (73) and Driver (74)
consider this quite groundless. The Tell el Amarna tablets include several people
from Alasia. The Eilesion of the Iliad (II, I, 617) is doubtless a further reference.
It is almost certain that the name reappears in the Ugarit tablets, (75) in which
there is a Canaanite reference to the Cyprians under the title, "Alasiyans". In
Ezekiel 27:7, it is said that purple stuffs were brought to Tyre from the "Isles"
(or coasts) of Elishah. The mussel from which the purple dye was obtained in
antiquity abounded on the coast of the Peloponnese, confirming the general area
settled by this grandson of Japheth.
It is confusing to find a people broadly referred to as the Greeks being traced
back and, without distinction, referred to both as the people of Hellas and as
Ionians. This is analogous, however, to referring to Englishmen as descendants
of the ormans, Picts, Scots, or Celts, etc. The fact is that in both cases a few
families have given rise to large clans or tribes, which, in the ebb and flow of
migration and conquest, became united in various mixtures, so that a historian
with one preference may emphasize one originating stock while another
historian emphasizes a different one. And both are correct.
Tarshish
ot too much can be stated with certainty about the identity of Tarshish,
another son of Javan. There are statements elsewhere in Scripture which confuse
the issue somewhat. For example, it was the opinion of Sayce (as it has been of a
number
71. Rawlinson, G., op. cit., ref.42, p.184.
72. Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, Chap. 6, section 1.
73. Skinner., J., op. cit., ref.28, p.198.
74. Driver , S. R., op. cit., ref.4, p.116.
75. Harris, Zellig S., "Ras Sharma: Canaanite Civilization and Language,"
Annual Report Smithsonian Institute, 1937, p.485. See also R. J. Forbes,
Metallurgy in Antiquity, Leiden, Brill, 1950, p.346.
pg.14 of 21
of other scholars) that Tartessos in Spain was probably one of the initial
settlements of Tarshish. However, the Old Testament speaks of ivory, apes, and

peacocks being brought by the ships of Tarshish (2 Chronicles 9:21). Such
creatures would not be expected from Spain. But Sayce (76) argues that the
implication is merely that merchants from Tartessos, or Tarshish, traded in
these items, which they perhaps picked up somewhere in Africa and sold
elsewhere in the Middle East. The Septuagint renders Tarshish in Isaiah 23:1 as
Karkedonos (karchedonos), which was the Greek form of the name Carthage in
orth Africa.
While the Phoenicians seem to have had many trade dealings with Tartessos,
the original port itself could not, according to Genesis 10 (where it is clear that
Tarshish is in the line of Japheth), have been founded by them, for in the Old
Testament the Phoenicians and Canaanites are described as descending from
Ham. The Carthaginians, as Phoenician colonists, maintained even in the days of
Augustine that they were Canaanites. (77) On the other hand, many colonies
were also established by the Phoenicians in Spain. Here is one of the difficulties,
for certain biblical references to Tarshish (2 Chronicles 9:21 and 20:36) have led
some scholars (78) to suppose that there must have been another Tarshish in the
Indian Ocean which could be reached via the Red Sea. Although this idea is now
generally rejected, it underscores the fact that Tartessos in Spain is not an
altogether satisfactory identification. That is to say, the Spanish settlement does
not on the face of it seem to have been a Japhetic one, nor do the products which
are said to have come from it seem proper to it.
However, Kalisch (79) believed that there was sufficient evidence to justify
identifying Tarshish as the original settler of the whole Spanish peninsula "so
far as it was known to the Hebrews, just as Javan is used to designate all the
Greeks." The Phoenicians arrived later. Cook (80) believed that a small tribe of
Javanites settled at the mouth of the Quadalquiver river in Spain,
Society, 1893,, p.47.
77. Carthaginian Canaanites: See article, "Phoenicia and the Phoenicians,"
Popular and Critical Bible Encyclopedia, Chicago, Howard-Severance, vol.2,
1912, p.1342, end of section 5.
78. So Jerome in his work On Jeremiah X, 9; and since then by Bochart and
many others.
79. Kalisch, M. M., A Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old
Testament, Longmans, Brown, Green, London, 1858, p.243.
80. Cook, F. C., The Holy Bible with Explanations and Critical Commentary,
London, Murray, vol.1,1871, p.85.
pg.15 of 21
thus initiating the colony of Tarshish. Bochart (81) says that both Cadiz and
Carteia, which were in the Bay of Gibraltar, were in ancient times called
Tartessos; also he thinks that Cadiz was built by Tarshish, grandson of Japheth,
immediately after the dispersion, and Carteia, long afterwards by the
Phoenicians. He refers to the fact that, according to Herodotus, (82) when the
Phoenicians first arrived, Tartessos was already in existence and the king of that

country was named Arganthonius.
In summary, then, it is possible that Tarshish, grandson of Japheth, settled in
Spain and established a capital city and a kingdom which later became a trading
point much used by the Phoenicians, who stopped there on their way to the
eastern Mediterranean ports, bringing wares picked up on the way. These wares
may have come partly from Spain and partly from Africa. It is not at all
impossible that some may even have come from India via the Horn of Africa, for
there is plenty of evidence that Phoenicians were superb navigators.
Kittim
There can be little doubt that by Kittim, or Chittim as it sometimes is spelled,
the Hebrews understood the people dwelling in Cyprus. Josephus (83) observed
that the island was called by the Greeks Kition and its inhabitants were known
as Kitieis, or Kittiaeans. In course of time the name came to have a larger
meaning, being extended from Cyprus to the other islands of the Aegean, and
from them to the mainland of Greece and even to Italy. For example, in 1
Maccabees 1:1, Alexander the Great is described as coming from the land of
Kittim, and in 1Maccabees 8:5, Perseus is referred to as the King of Kittim. In 1
Maccabees 11:30, both the Vulgate and the Septuagint translate Chittim as
Romanos. Although I have not seen elsewhere any reference to the possibility, it
appears to me that the land of Chittim might be found in the form Ma-Chettim.
Ma, as we have already observed, is a prefix for "place". If so, we may have the
original form of the more familiar "Macedon", the land of Alexander the
Great's birth.
There is not much substance in these remarks, but, in a general sense, they
confirm the impression given throughout this
81. Bochart: quoted by J. Lloyd, Analysis of the First Eleven Chapters of
Genesis, London, Bagster, 1869, p.117, note.
82. Herodotus, Book 1, chap. 163.
83. Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, chap. 6, section, 1.
pg.16 of 21
portion of Genesis 10 that the Japhethites were very much at home along the
shores of the Mediterranean and throughout its islands, as well as up into and
across Europe.
Dodanim
ot very much can be written about this, except that it seems to appear
elsewhere in Scripture with the initial D replaced by an R (cf. 1 Chronicles 1:7).
If Rodanim is the preferred form, it would appear that the Island of Rhodes
formed one link in a series of settlements by the descendants of Javan.
The River Rhodonus, i.e., the Rhone, may have received its name from a
branch of this family which settled at its mouth. (84) In Epirus, there is to be

found the city of Dodona and the county of Doris. Bochart suggested that the
first settlement of the Dodanim was in southwest Asia Minor in that part of the
country called by the Greeks Doris. It is possible also that a more corrupted
form of the name is the Dardan, found in the inscriptions of Rameses II,
signifying a people of Asia Minor not far from the Lycians, and just possibly
providing us with the origin of the term, "Dardanelles". In the present state of
our knowledge of antiquity, little more can be said about the descendants of
Dodanim.
Meshech and Tubal
These two names occur rather frequently as a couplet (see, for example,
Ezekiel 32:26, 38:2,3). Meshech is found on the Assyrians monuments in the
form of "Muskaa", probably pronounced Muskai. Classical writers were in the
habit of calling them the Moskhi, and, in the time of Ezekiel, the position of these
people is probably that described by Herdotus (III, 94), i.e., in Armenia, where a
mountain chain connecting the Caucasus and Anti-Taraus was named after
them, the Moschici Montes. Here, according to Strabo (XI, 497-499), was a
district named Moschice.
In the Assyrian inscriptions, the word Tubal occurs as Tubla, whereas it
seems to have been known to classical geographers as Tibareni. According to
Rawlinson, (85) these two -- the Mushki and the Tibareni -- dwelt in close
proximity to each other on the northern coast of Asia Minor and were, at one
time, among the most powerful people of that area. The Moschian capital was
known to Josephus and was called by the Romans
84. Greenwood, George, The Book of Genesis: An Authentic Record, London,
Church Printing Co., vol.2, 1904, p.29.
pg.17 of 21
Caesarea Mazaca. Josephus (86) also says that the Iberians of Italy were
descendants of Tubal. As he put it, "Thobel founded the Thobelites, now called
Iberis." It also is possible that in the River Tiber we have a recollection of this
same ancestor. According to Forbes, (87) the Moschi and Tibareni are included
in the 19th satrapy of Darius. They were redoubtable enemies of the Assyrians in
the early half of the first millennium B.C.; Tiglath Shalmaneser II mentions
tribute paid to him by "twenty-four kings of the land of Tubal." (88)
By classical times, these people had moved northwards, (89) although
Xenophon (90) and his Greek troops still found remnants of them south of the
Black Sea. Much later in history we meet the word Meshech in the form
Muskovy. It is possible that the two famous cities of Moscow and Tobolsk still
preserve the elements of the names Meshech and Tubal.

Tiras
According to Josephus and the Targum, the descendants of Tiras became the
Thracians. Smith (91) says that one offshoot of the Thracians were the Getae or
Goths. King Darius conquered them in 515 B.C. By the time of Alexander the
Great (c. 330 B.C.), they had settled the mouth of the Danube. (92) They
maintained independence but in the early part of the first century B.C., united
with the Dacians, thereafter harassing the Roman legions until they were
conquered by Trajan in A.D. 106 and incorporated into the Roman Empire.
One of the problems here is that we have no further occurrence in Scripture
of Tiras. There is this one brief mention of his name and then, unlike Gomer,
Meshech, or Tubal, he disappears entirely. If the Thracians were really
descendants and if they were, as Rawlinson says, (93) widely scattered with
many offshoots such as the Bithynians and Phrygians, one might have expected
that Scripture would make some reference to Tiras
86. Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, chap. 6, section 1.
87. Forbes, R. J., Metallurgy in Antiquity, Leiden, L, Brill, 1950, p.280.
88. Schrader, E., The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, London,
Williams and orgate, 1885, p.64.
Society, 1893, p.48.
90. Xenophon, The Anabasis, translated by J. S. Watson, ew York, Harper,
1861, Book V, chap.5, section 1, p.159.
91. Smith, R. Payne, Commentary on Genesis, edited by Ellicott, Zondervan,
Grand Rapids, no date, p.149.
92. "Getae": Everyman's Encyclopedia, London, Dent, vol.6, p,1913.
pg.18 of 21
Figure 2.
The basic centres of civilization which underlie all others.
Each of the cultural centres of the early world were Hamitic in origin.
pg.19 of 21
subsequently. On the other hand, it may be said that a general belief exists
among ethnologists, (which is, nevertheless, not susceptible of proof), that the
Thracians ultimately gave origin to the Teutons. Thus Rawlinson observes: (94)
The Thracian tribe of the Getae seems to have grown into the great nation
of the Goths, while the Dacia (or Dacini) seem to have been the ancestors of the
Danes. The few Thracian words that have come down to us are decidedly
teutonic There is also a resemblance between the Thracian customs, as described
by Herodotus (V, 4-8) and those which Tacitus assigns to the Germans.

Once again we have to admit that these are slender lines of evidence; yet, in
many respects, they have a general concordance with all else that we know of the
descendants of Japheth as a whole. There is, therefore, every likelihood that the
descendants of Tiras made as large a contribution to the population and
civilization of Europe as the rest of his immediate family.
Out of this intricate network of possibilities and probabilities, there emerges a
reasonably clear picture in which a single family beginning with Japheth
multiplied in the course of time and peopled the northern shore of the
Mediterranean, the whole of Europe, the British Isles and Scandinavia, and the
larger part of Russia. The same family settled India, displacing a prior
settlement of Hamites who had established themselves in the Indus Valley.
Isolated groups of this same people seem to have wandered further afield
towards the East, contributing to small pockets of Japhethites which, in course
of time, were almost, if not wholly, swallowed up by the Hamites. It is possible
that some of them contributed characteristics found in the people of Polynesia,
and it is conceivable that in the Ainu of northern Japan there is a remnant of
Japhethites.
oah had said that God would enlarge Japheth (Genesis 9:27). It seems that
this enlargement began very early in Japheth's history, but it has been a
continuing process and occurring in every part of the world, with the exception
of the Far East. The children of Japheth have tended to spread and multiply at
the expense of other racial stocks. As we shall see in the last chapter, this
enlargement did not mean that Japhethites were the first to migrate far and
wide, for wherever they have spread, whether in prehistoric or historic times,
they have been preceded by even earlier settlers whose racial origin was not
Indo-European. This pattern of settlement of the habitable areas of the world
pg.20 of 21
has had a profound significance in the development of civilization, a significance
which is considered in some detail in another Doorway Paper. (95)
In the meantime, it has been established by many lines of evidence that the
actual names provided in Genesis 10:1-5 were indeed those of real people, whose
families carried with them recognizably clear recollections (though often in
corrupted form), of their respective forebears, so that they have survived to the
present day, still bearing the kind of relationships that are implied in this
ancient Table of ations. And even the patriarchal name is often unmistakably
preserved!

Chapter 3
The Descendants of Ham
THE DESCE DA TS of Japheth and the descendants of Shem are traced
reasonably clearly in subsequent history, but the descendants of Ham present
problems which are not shared by these other two. It is true that a certain
number of listed descendants of Ham are also easily traceable, for example,
Mizraim, Canaan, and Heth. And a number of tlle cities related to Ham in
Genesis 10 present no problems, having become household words to Bible
students. But there are many names here, about which we have very little
information, yet which may have been ancestors of very substantial portions of
the present world's population. It is certain of these names we propose to
examine, for they bear upon the origin of the so-called "coloured races."
We have already proposed that Japheth was indeed "enlarged" to an
exceptional degree in his descendants, not merely in the number of nations
ultimately derived from his family but in their very wide spread over the face of
the earth. Also, this enlargement was gradual enough to occur without seriously
disrupting the natural development of dialectic differences, which in due course
became distinct languages within the family. In another Doorway Paper (96) it is
suggested that the confusion which occurred at Babel served chiefly as an
affliction for the children of Ham, whose languages have proliferated
bewilderingly from very early times to the present day, a proliferation
contributing in no small measure to the fragmentation of the original family.
The changes which took place in the Semitic family of languages were
remarkably small. And though the changes which took place in the Japhetic
family of languages were somewhat
96. Custance, Arthur, "The Confusion of Languages", Part V in Time and
Eternity , vol. 6 in The Doorway Papers Series.
pg 1 of 12
greater, they were nevertheless so orderly as to allow linguists to reconstitute
both families with considerable assurance. In neither of these two families of
language is there any real evidence of "confusion" in their development. On the
other hand, in the languages of the Hamitic line there is a great deal of
confusion, if by "confusion" we allow the term to mean that dialects rapidly
developed between neighbouring and related tribes as they multiplied, rendering
their speech unintelligible to one another in a remarkably short space of time.
This subject is explored in the Doorway Paper mentioned above and will not be
pursued here, but it is necessary to introduce this because it bears on the lack of
persistence through passing centuries of Hamitic ancestral names compared to
those in the lines of Japheth and Shem. This makes it much more difficult to
establish lines of connection by the means of names. In fact, the most important
members of Ham's family bore names which disappeared completely except as
preserved in ancient documents. The names of Ham's sons are not preserved

even in corrupted form in modern times. The sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim,
Phut, and Canaan, but not one of these is held today by any living
representatives in any recognizable form whatever. Cush subsequently became
identified with Ethiopia, Mizraim with Egypt, Phut with Libya, and Canaan
with Palestine, but the old names passed completely out of use.
On the other hand, many of the names were bywords for a long time not
because there were numerous descendants, as in the case of Japheth, but rather
because of some single notable achievement. imrod was remembered for his
hunting prowess. Many of the cities which are listed as having been founded by
Ham's descendants had notable histories. But they, too, for the most part ceased
to have importance long before modern times. A notable exception is the city
Jerusalem, which of course is not actually mentioned at all even under its older
name Jebus.
How, then, can one provide substantiating evidence for the claim that from
Ham were descended the coloured races? The answer is, Only by inference. For
example, while there was a Cush in or near Mesopotamia at the very beginning,
the most prominent settlement established by descendants of this patriarch was
in Ethiopia. The Ethiopians have been habitually considered true blacks, which
is recognized indirectly in Scripture when the prophet asks, "Can the Ethiopian
change his skin?" (Jeremiah 13:23) . The first son of Cush was Seba, and
according to Jervis, this
pg.2 of 12
patriarch was reputedly the founder of the Kingdom of Jemameh in Arabia. He
says: (97)
His tribe, extending eastward, occupied the coast of Oman, from Cape
Musandam to tle neighbourhood of Ras-el-Had, on the extreme east border of
the peninsula: they are mentioned by Ptolemy under the name of Asabi. The
commercial greatness of this nation is attributed to their possession of Littus
Hammaeum or Gold Coast, and of tlle port of Maskat, which, from the infancy
of navigation, must have attracted and cornmanded the commerce of India.
It appears that, from thence, they spread into Africa, across tlle straits of
Bab-el-Mandeb. Josephus attests that Saba was an ancient metropolis of the
kingdom of Meroe, in the very fertile region between the ile and Astaboras (or
Bahr-el-aswad); and that it ultimately received the name of Meroe after a sister
of Cambyses King of Persia, although Meroe seems rather to be a word of
Ethiopic derivation. The ruins of the ancient Meroe lie four miles to the north-
east of Shendy, in ubia.
There are other native African tribes which trace themselves back
traditionally to Ham. The Yoruba (98) who are black skinned, for example,
claim to be descendants of imrod, whereas the Libyians, who are "white"
skinned, are usually traced back to Lehabim, a son of Mizraim. And the
Egyptians were direct descendants of Mizraim. It is therefore possible that all of
Africa, despite the different shades of colour of its native populations, was

initially settled by various members of this one Hamitic family. There still
remains, however, the vast aggregate of peoples who are generally classified as
Mongoloid, who settled the Far East and the ew World. Do they really appear
in this genealogical tree, or must we admit that the Table of ations is not
comprehensive here?
There are two names which I think may conceivably provide us with clues.
That they should be so briefly referred to in the genealogy may seem surprising
if as we are proposing they gave rise to such enormous populations. We are
referring specifically to Heth, a son of Canaan, and the Sinites, a tribe
presumably descended from Sin, a brother of Heth.
Heth was, without question, the father of the Hittites. Except for the work of
archaeologists, however, we should never have known how important the
descendants of this man really were at one point in history, for the Hittite empire
disappeared
97. Jervis, J. J-W., Genesis Elucidated, Bagster, London, 1872, p.167.
98. Yoruba: see K. C. Murray, " igerian Bronzes: Work from Ife," Antiquity,
England, Mar., 1941, p.76.
pg.3 of 12
completely from view -- or nearly completely. This qualification is necessary if
we allow any weight to an observation made by C. R. Conder. (90) It was his
contention that when the Hittite empire crumbled, all the Hittites of importance
were either killed or fled eastwards. Conder's view was that the word "Hittite,"
which appears in Cuneiform as " Khittae," was borne by the fleeing remnant of
this once powerful nation to the Far East and was preserved through the
centuries in the more familiar form ''Cathay.'' (100) He assumes that they
became a not unimportant part of early Chinese stock. Certainly there are
curious links between them, for example, their modes of dress, their shoes with
turned-up toes, their manner of doing their hair in a pigtail, and so forth.
Representations show them to have possessed high cheekbones, and craniologists
have observed that they had not a few characteristics of the Mongoloids. More
recently, another possible corroborating link appears in the discovery that the
Hittites mastered the art of casting iron and the taming of horses, two
achievements of great importance, and recurring very early in Chinese history
(101) long before reaching the West.
It should be observed that linguistic evidence exists for a Japhetic component
in the Hittite empire. (102) In view of the fact that their initial expansion took
place in Asia Minor, it is not too surprising that there may have been a mixture
of races within the Empire. It could well be that there was an Indo-European
aristocracy, just as at one point in Egyptian history there was a Shepherd King
(Shemite) aristocracy. George Barton observed: (103)
Some features of their speech clearly resemble features of the Indo-
European family of languages, but other features seem to denote Tartar (i.e.,
Mongol) affinities. In a number of instances the influence of the Assyrian

language can clearly be traced. The same confusion presents itself when we
study the pictures of Hittites as they appear in Egyptian reliefs. Two
99. Conder, C. R., "The Canaanites," Transactions of the Victoria lustitute,
London, vol.24, 1890, p.51.
100. Chinese used rocket weapons for the first time, called them "Alsichem Al-
Khatai" or "Chinese Arrows". See Willey Ley, "Rockets", in Scientific
American, May, 1949, p.31.
101. eedham, J., Science and Civilization in China, Cambridge, 1954, vol.1, for
horses, pp.81, 83, etc., for cast iron, pp.I, 235, etc.
102. Hittite Indo-Europeans: See for example, O. G. Gurney, The Hittites,
Pelican Books, London, 1952, chap. 6, p.117. And see the conclusion of George
Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, American Sunday 8chool Union,
Philadelphia, 6th edition, 1933, p.92, fn.
103. Barton, George, ibid., pp.90, 91.
pg.4 of 12
distinct types of face are there portrayed. One type has high cheekbones,
oblique eyes, .and wears a pigtail, like the people of Mong,olia and China. The
other has a cleancut head and face which resemble somewhat tlhe early Greeks.
This brings us to Heth's brother whose name was, presumably, Sin. Of this
name there are many occurrences in variant forms through the Middle East and
towards the Far East. One of the characteristics of Hamitic peoples -- using the
term "Hamite" in its strictly biblical sense and not as anthropologists currently
employ it is a tendency to deify their ancestors. It has been suggested that the
Ammon of the Egyptians is a case in point, in which Ham himlself has been
deified: the combination in that same land of o-Ammon may be an extension of
this practice back to oah himself, who is then associated with his son in the
dual title. The point of direct concern here is that the word "Sin" became the
name of a very important deity, appearing frorn quite early times until quite late
in Assyrian history. The last King of Sumerian Ur was named "Abi-Sin." The
word appears, of course, in the name Sennacherib (Sin-ahe-erba, i.e., "May the
god Sin multiply [my] brothers''), and as aran-Sin, etc.
Sin was important enough not only to have been deified but to have been
given the title "I,ord of Laws". (104) In a hymn from Ur, it is said of him that it
was "he who created law and justice so that mankind has established laws," and
again, "the ordainer of laws of heaven and earth." Another remarkable
circumstance may stem from this, for if some of his descendants travelled south
into Arabia and settled in a district subsequently known as Sin-ai, then possibly
his reputation as a great codifier of law led to a tradition which associated Sinai
as a place where law was originated. It is possible that there is some connection
between this circumstance andl God's choice of Mount Sinai as the place where
He gave the Ten Commandments. Moreover, according to Boscawen, the title
"Lord ot Laws," attributed to the deified Sin is, in the original hymn of Ur, Bel-
Terite, and the first syllable is a gotm of the more familiar ''Baal." And the word

"Terite" is the plural of the form "tertu" meaning "law," which itself is the
equivalent of the Hebrew ''torah" ("law").
In spite of the fact, therefore, that the patriarch Sin receives scant mention in
Genesis 10, he was a very important individual.
104. Boscawen, W. St. Chad, The Bible and the Monuments, Eyre ancl
Spottiswoode, London, 1896, p.64.
pg.5 of 12
He may further have had his name preserved in the modern term "China."
Although Perry espoused a view of culture growth which has corne into general
disrepute because of its over-simplification, he nevertheless rnay be essentially
correct in the statements which he makes showing the Chinese civilization as
having come from the West. ot a few Cuneiform scholars have noted how
similar, in some respects, was Sumerian to Chinese. ow, Perry says: (l05)
There is one significant feature concerning the possible mode of origin of
Chinese civilization tlat well merits attention. Tlle place most closely associated
by tle Chinese themselves with the origin of their civilization is the capital of
Shensi, namely, Siang-fu (Father Sin). Siangfu, on the Wei, a tributary of the
Yellow River, is near important gold and jade mines.
It is surely significant that Sinai was equally important as a place of mines.
The name "Sin," according to Dillmann, (106) is met with in Assyrian in the
form "Sianu." It would not be difficult for "Father Sin" to become "Father
Sian" or, with a slight nasalization, "Siang," in Chinese "Sianfu." The Chinese
have a tradition that their first king, Fu-hi, made his appearance on the
Mountains of Chin immediately after the world had been covered with water.
(107) Sin himself was the third generation from oah, a circumstance which, if
the identification is justified, would provide about the right time interval.
Moreover, the people who early traded with the Scythians and who came
from the Far East were called "Sinae," and their most important town was
"Thinae," a great trading emporium in western China. (107) This city is now
known as "Thsin" or simply "Tin," and it lies in the province of Shensi.
The Sinae became independent in western China, their princes reigning there
for some 650 years before they finally gained dominion over the whole land. In
the third century B.C. the dynasty of Tsin became supreme in the Empire. The
word itself came to have the meaning of "purebred." This word was assumed as
a title by the Manchu Emperors and is believed to have been changed by the
Malays into the form "Tchina" and
105 Perry, W. J., The Growth of Civilization, Pelican Books, London, 1937,
p125.
106. Dillmann, A., Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, T, & T.
Clark, Edinburgh, 1897, vol.1, p.367.
107. Inglis, J., otes on the Book of Genesis, Gall and Inglis, London, 1877, p.89,

footnote to verse 28.
108. Fausset, A. R., "Sinim," Bible Cyclopedia: Critical and Expository, Funk
and Wagnalls, London, no date, p.655.
pg.6 of 12
from them through the Portuguese brought into Europe as "China." Some years
ago the newspapers regularly carried headlines with reference to the conflict
between the Japanese and Chinese in which the ancient name reappeared in its
original form, for they commonly spoke of the Sino-Japanese war.
Arrian in A.D. 140 (109) speaks of the Sinae or Thinae as a people in the
remotest parts of Asia. One is reminded of the reference to the Sinim in Isaiah
49:12 as coming "from afar," but specifically not from the north and not from
the west.
Reverting once more to Conder's observation with respect to the "far
Cathay" of Medieval reference, it would make sense to suppose that the
remnants of the Hittites after the destruction of their Empire travelled towards
the East and settled among the Sinites who were relatives, contributing to their
civilization certain arts, chiefly metallurgy (especially the casting of iron) and
being so absorbed subsequently as to disappear entirely from history as a
distinct people.
The finding of prehistoric man in the Choukoutien Caves with skeletal
remains variant enough to bridge from the western limits of types in China to
types in the ev World has seemed to many to be clear evidence that those who
settled the ew World passed through Cllina. That the ew World was peopled
by a Mongoloid stock is generally agreed, although there is some evidence of a
small egroid component. (1l0) The evidence, it is true, is slim, but what
evidence there is appears to me to point consistently in the same direction,
supporting our initial contention that not only Africa with its black races, but
the Far East and the Americas with their coloured races were all descendants of
Ham.
There is one further illustration of how the descendants of Ham may have
contributed uniquely to Japhetic civilization, in this case, the Roman. The
contribution made to Japhetic culture by the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the
Cretans, and later the Chinese, and the American Indians, is explored in detail
in Part IV of this volume, "The Technology of Hamitic People." The
contribution made by the Etruscans is similarly pointed out in that Paper. The
origin of the Etruscans, even though they have
109. Arrian: as quoted by C. A. Gordon, " otes on the Ethnology and Ancient
Chronology of China,'' Transactions of the Victoria Institute, London, vol.23,
1889, p.170.
110. Taylor, Griffith, Environment, Race and Migration, University of Toronto,
1945, p.256. See also E. A. Hooten, Apes, Men and Morons, Putnam's Sons,
London, 1937, p.185.
pg.7 of 12

been studied and puzzled over intensively for over a hundred years, is still a
mystery. I should like to suggest that there is one name in the list of Ham's
descendants which might conceivably be a reference to their forebear, namely
Resen (verse 19).
Resen is said to have been a city. It is characteristic of the earliest towns and
cities mentioned in Genesis that they were named after their founders or their
founders' children. Cain built a city and called it after the name of his son,
Enoch, according to Genesis 4:17. There is little doubt that the Unuk, and later
Uruk, of Cuneiform inscriptions reflects this. As we have shown elsewhere, this
early settlement became known as Erech in due time, and much later as Warka.
It gave rise to a word meaning "city" (111) which has come into English as
"burg." We have noted also that Sidon is first mentioned as the firstborn son of
Canaan, but a few verses later as the name of a city (verses 15 and 19). Similarly,
the Jebusites, presumably descendants of a man named Jebus, lived in a
stronghold named originally after their ancestor. So I think it quite probable
that when imrod went up from southern Babylonia into Assyria and built
ineveh and Resen, among other tovns, he was naming the city of Resen either
from a forebear or after an immediate relative. It is not strictly required to
demonstrate that the Etruscans were a kind of colonizing fragment originating
from this particular settlement founded by imrod. All I am proposing is that an
ancestor whose name was Resen not only achieved sufficient importance to have
an ancient city named after him in Assyria, but also to have given rise to a
people who grew powerful enough and large enough to migrate up into Europe
and into the north of Italy, from which they multiplied, and became wealthy and
cultured enough to inspire the Japhetic Romans to adopt a very large part of
their art, law, custom, and technology as their own, making scarcely any
improvement on it.
The question is, Can we reasonably establish the propriety of deriving the
more familiar word "Etruscan" from an ancient Resen; of tracing these same
people back to the Middle East and close proximity to Assyria; and of
establishing their racial affinity as neither Indo-European nor Shemitic. The
answer to all three of these questions can be stated in the affirmative with some
assurance on the following grounds.
To begin with, it can be stated simply that the people of
1l1. City: Eisler, R., "Loan Words in Semitic Languages Meaning 'Town',"
Antiguity, Dec., 1939, pp.449ff.
pg.8 of 12
Etruria or Tuscany were called by the early Greeks Tyrsenoi. By the early
Romans they were called Etrusci. But in classic Latin times, they called
themselves Rasena. (112)
According to Herodotus, (113) these people came from Lydia. They claimed to
have invented, during a very protracted famine in the land, a series of games,
including dice. These were subsequently introduced into northern Italy and into

Greece as a result of the following circumstance. The situation finally became so
serious that it was decided to divide the nation in half, one half emigrating from
Lydia in the hope of saving the other. The king's son was named Tyrrhenus, and
he became the leader by appointment of that half of the nation which left Lydia.
After sailing past many "countries," they came to a place which Herodotus calls
"Umbria" (apparently almost the whole of northern Italy is intended) where
they built cities for themselves. They laid aside their former name of Lydians
and called themselves after the name of the king's son, Tyrrheneans.
That these people, the Etruscans, did come from Asia Minor is confirmed on
linguistic and other grounds. Professor Joshua Whatmought says, "There is
scarcely room any longer to doubt the Anatolian aflmities of the Etruscans."
Raymond Bloch (115) on the basis of linguistic evidence believes that the
Etruscans belonged to a loosely interrelated family of people who inhabited the
shores of the Mediterranean, including those of Asia Minor, before the Indo-
European invasion upset the patterns of the region, an invasion which came in
the second millennium B.C. He considers the Etruscans to be a "pocket" of such
displaced people, and that this explains the similarity between their religious and
social customs and those of certain peoples of Asia Minor.
Many years ago, Prof. E. St. John Parry (116) presented evidence to show
that the Pelasgians who, like the Etruscans, built Megalithic monuments, may
have been disturbed at the same time by the same circumstance and moved out
from Asia Minor along with them, subsequently being confused with them by
early historiographers.
112. Rouse, M. L., "Bible Pedgree of the ations of the World", Transactions of
the Victoria Institute, vol.38, 1906, p.93.
113. Herodotus, History, vol.1, Everymans, London, 1936, pp.50, 51.
114. Whatmough, Joshua, in a review of "The Foundations of Roman Italy,"
Antiquity, vol.11, 1937, p.363.
115. Bloch, Raymond, "The Etruscans," Scientific American, Feb., 1962, p.87.
116. Parry, E. St. John, "On Some Points Connected With the Early History of
Rome," Canadian Journal, Apr., 1854, p.219.
pg.9 of 12
One thing seems well established, and that is their language was neither Indo-
European nor Semitic. (117) It seems fairly safe to assume (though language is
by no means a safe guide in the matter) that they were themselves racially
distinct from the Indo-Europeans. (118) A relationship has also been proposed
with certain other "pockets" the Basques, for example. (119)
We have mentioned the tradition which ascribes to the Etruscans or Racena
the invention of dice. Years ago a pair of dice were found with the numbers
apparently written out upon them instead of merely being indicated by dots.
Shortly after their discovery, the Rev. Isaac Taylor presented a paper (120)
before the Victoria Institute in London in which he showed that the most
probable interpretation of the numerals was to be found by reference to allied
terms in Finnic, Altaic, and Basque. A few years later, while the subject was still

a very live issue as indeed it still is a paper was presented by a Mr. R. Brown
(121) before the same Institute in which, in an appendix, some further Etruscan
words are compared to certain Sumerian words. We are, then, coming perhaps
even nearer to the ancient Resen of Genesis 10.
In his Origin of ations, Rawlinson (122) draws attention to the fact that
certain Etruscan bronzes are decorated or adorned with figures in rows,
exhibiting sphinxes and human beings which, he suggests, are not unlike similar
processions of figures found near ineveh. These Assyrian parallels were
discovered by Layard and reported in his famous work, Discoveries in the Ruins
of Babylon and ineveh. Of these, Layard wrote as follows: (123)
A second bowl, 7/2 inches in diameter and 3/4 inches deep, has in the centre
a medallion and on the sides in a very high relief two lions and two sphinxes . . .
wearing a collar, feathers, and a headdress formed by a disc with two uraei.
Both bowls are remarkable for the boldness of the relief and the archaic
117. Fiesel, Eva, "The Inscriptions on the Etruscan Bulla," American Journal of
Archaeology, June, 1935, p.196.
118. MacIvor, D. R., "The Etruscans," Antiquity, June, 1927, p.162.
119. Basques: Everyman's Encyclopedia, vol.5, Dent, London, 1913, p.544.
120. Taylor, Isaac, "On the Etruscan Languages," Transactions of the Victoria
Institute, London, vol.10, 1876, p.179-206.
121. Brown, R., special note on "The Etruscans," Transactions of the Victoria
122. Rawlinson, G., The Origin of ations, Scribners, ew York, 1878, p.123.
123. Layard, A. H., Discoveries in the Ruins of Babylon and ineveh, Murray,
London, 1853, p.189.
pg.10 of 12
treatment of the figures, in this respect resembling tbe ivories previously
discovered at imroud
They forcibly call to mind the early remains of Greece, and especially the
metal work and painted pottery found in very ancient tomls in Etruria, which
they so closely resernble not only in design but in subject, the same mythic
animals and the same ornaments being introduced, that we cannot but attribute
to both the same origin.
Layard emphasizes this impression by illustrating his point with woodcuts in
the text, which show that the figures found on a bronze pedestal at Powledrara
in Etruria "are precisely similar to those upon a fragment of a dish brought
from ineveh." A thread of evidence carries us back, therefore, to the very
environs of ineveh where the city of Resen was situated.
There is a further piece of evidence leading us back to the same earlier
source. It is of a slightly different nature though equally suggestive. The Romans
annually celebrated a festival called the "Festival of Saturnus," or "Saturnalia,"
during which law courts were closed, school children had a holiday, and all

business was suspended. One remarkable custom was the "liberation" or
"freeing" of all slaves, who were allowed to say whatever they wished about
their masters, took part in a banquet attired in their masters' clothes, and were
waited upon by them at table. This period of freedom lasted about one week.
The origin of this festival, according to Smith's Dictionary of Greek and
Roman Antiquities, is not certain. (124) In one legend it was attributed to the
Pelasgians. In view of the fact that so many of the features of earlier Roman
culture, including their ceremonies, are directly attributable to the Etruscans,
and that the Etruscans and Pelasgians were sometimes confused with one
another, it seems possible that this strange practice of giving slaves a week of
complete liberty, indeed of licence, was originally introduced by the Etruscans.
It is therefore highly significant, I think, that when Prof. Pinches read a paper
before the Victoria Institute entitled, " otes upon Some of the Recent
Discoveries in the Realm of Assyriology," he referred to one inscription of the
famous Gudea who stated that after he had built Eninnu (a house or temple), he
"released bonds and confirmed benefits. For seven days obedience was not
exacted, the maid was made like her mistress,
124. "Saturnalia": Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, vol.2,
Murray, London, 3rd edition, 1901, p.600.
pg.11 of 12
and the manservant like his lord." In commenting on this, Prof. Pinches (125)
remarks:
Of course, the Sumerians were slave-holders, but they seem to have been of
a kindly disposition, and to have treated their slaves well. In this case seven days'
holiday are said to have been given them, and this is the only Cuneiform record
known of such a thing.
It is indeed remarkable that there should be such a hiatus of so many
centuries of absence of reference to this custom from Gudea to Roman times, yet
evidently the custom was transmitted somehow, and it would seem most logical
to assume that the transmitters were the Racina, the descendants of a certain
Resen who were familiar with Assyrian culture.
In summary, then, we have a people calling themselves Rasena, after an
ancestor whose name could easily be a form of the more ancient Resen, starting
in Assyria, settling in Lydia from which they later emigrated to northern Italy,
speaking a language neither Semitic nor Indo-European, pre-eminently city-
builders (as though continuing the tradition of their ancestor), and still
producing works of art for which quite exact parallels have been found in the
very locality in which Genesis 10 states the city of Resen was built.
It may be that just as Sidon was remembered by a city named for him, so the
city of Resen commemorated a patriarch whose descendants, long after the city
had disappeared from view, multiplied and carried on their inherited tradition
of city life as well as the name of their forebear and settled in Etruria, where

they made a tremendous contribution to the basic Roman civilization which has
become in time our own.
125. Pinches, T. G., " otes Upon Some of the Recent Discoveries in the Realm of
Assyriology with Special Reference to the Private Life of the Babylonians,"
Transactions of the Victoria Institute, London, vol.26, 1892, p.139.
Chapter 4
Tbe Descendants ot Shem
I SPITE of the fact that in the line of Shem were to follow the Lawgivers,
Prophets, Priests, and Kings with whose history the rest of the Old Testament is
concerned, there is less to say about this part of the genealogy. One or two points
are worth noticing, however, partly because the authenticity of the Table is
supported here also, and partly because there is particular interest in one
individual, Peleg, who is singled out for special mention, as imrod was in the
previous section.
First, we have Elam listed as apparently the firstborn of Shem. The country
named after him to the east of southern Mesopotamia was for many years
believed to have been settled by people who were clearly not Shemites, and the
biblical statement here was challenged. Subsequent excavations, however, have
shown that the very earliest people to settle here were indeed Shemites. It is so
often true that things appear to stand against the Word of God at first, but in the
end further light completely vindicates it. The person who accepts it is like a
man who appears to be losing every battle but still enjoys the absolute assurance
of winning the final victory. This is a much happier position to be in, in the long
run, than to be enjoying apparent victory only to find out in the end that one
must lose. o less an authority than S. R. Driver, (126) although he underscores
the fact that in later times the Elamites were entirely distinct racially from the
Shemites (their language, for instance, being agglutinated), was forced to admit
that "inscriptions recently discovered" seem to have shown that in very early
times Elam was peopled by Shemites. He could not help but add that the biblical
statement probably originated because Elam was dependent in
126 Driver. S. R., The Book of Genesis, Westminster Commentaries, Methuen,
London, 1904, 3rd edition, p.128.
pg 1 of 6
much later times upon Semitic Babylonia; he assures his readers that "it is very
unlikely" that the original author of Genesis 10 could possibly have known what
we now know. But since Driver's time, further excavation has provided very
strong evidence of direct cultural links between sorne of the earliest cities in

Babylonia and the lowest strata at Susa, the capital of Elam. (127)
The evidence now seems to indicate clearly the presence in Mesopotamia in
very early times of three distinct groups of people, the Sumerians (Hamites), the
earliest Babylonians (Shemites), and a group of people whom both Childe and
Mallowen properly refer to as Japhethites (i.e., Indo-Europeans) . As Childe put
it: (128)
From later written records, philologists deduce the presence of three
linguistic groups -- "Japhethites" (known only inferentially from a few place-
names); Semites (speaking a language akin to Hebrew and Arabic); and the
dominant Sumerians.
The picture as presented elsewhere by Childe (129) reveals that the first
people to enter Mesopotamia came from the East and were not Sumerians, but
were in fact Shemitic EIamites, who founded such early cities as Al-lJbaid and
Jemdet asr. These people established themselves first in the south and
gradually spread toward the north, but without losing the cultural links which
take us back to Elam. Childe then proposes that a second wave of immigrants
into Mesopotamia followed, who this time were not Shemites but Sumerians, i.e.,
E1amites. These people brought new civilizing influences with them which led to
considerable cultural advance, until by the time of the Uruk period, though still
a minority, they had become the rulers. Meanwllile, further to the north, i.e., in
Assyria, the Shemites continued their slow development until there arose in the
south a man whom Scripture names imrod, in the line of Ham. He established
himself as lord of the South and then travelled up into Assyria, or as Scripture
has it, "went forth out of that land into Asshur and added it to his kingdom." At
the same time he founded a number of cities mentioned in Genesis 10 in
connection with ineveh.
Mallowen emphasizes the distinctions between these two
127. First observed by E. A. Speiser excavating at Tepe Gawra in 1927 and
reported in Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, vol.9, 1929, p.
22.
128. Childe, V. G., What Happened in History, Pelican Books, 1948, p.81.
129. Childe, V. G., ew Light on the Most Ancient East, Kegan Paul, London,
1935, pp.133, 136, and 145-146.
pg.2 of 6
dominant types, the Sumerians and the Akkadians, i.e., the Hamites and
Shemites, in this early period of the country's development. (130) At the same
tirne he also underscores the fact that there was another group, whose existence
is well attested on linguistic grounds. Speiser (131) proposed that name
Japhethite for these people, known very early in the hill country east of the
Tigris. They were noted especially for their fairness of skin. That they did
penetrate southern Mesopotarnia at least in sorne numbers in very early times
has been noted by Campbell Thompson (132) as well as by Speiser.

The general picture, then, although the details are not as clear as we would
wish, nevertheless supports the implications of Genesis 10, even allowing us to
detect reverberations of the exploits of imrod who is otherwise still
unidentified. Someone established a southern ascendency in the north: perhaps
imrod.
The second thing to notice in this section of the genealogy is the note about
Peleg: "in whose days the earth was divided." The interpretations of this brief
note has been both broad and interesting. Recently it has begun to appear that
the Pelasgians of antiquity, who were great sea-going merchants and sometimes
pirates, in earliest times may have received their name from Peleg. Surviving in a
multitude of forms is a determinative appended to many words that has the
effect of converting the word into a patronymic. This appears, for example, as "-
icus" in the word "Germanicus," also "-ic" in the word "Britannic," "ski" in
many familiar Russian narnes, possibly "-scans" in the word "Etruscans," and
"scion" in English. Another one, which is the important point in this context, is
"skoi," placed after the more ancient name "Peleg," giving the compound form
"Pelegskoi." These are the "Pelasgians." The Pelasgians are very much of a
mystery, for although they appear to have been quite powerful, it is not clear
where they came from or what happened to them. When the Thracians
descended to the Aegean from the north in the 14th century B.C., they displaced
the Pelasgians from the territory which they held between the Hebrus and the
Strymon. It is curious to find the Pelasgians occupying a territory adjacent to a
river, the Hebrus, bearing a name so much reminiscent of Eber who, according
to Genesis 10:25, was tlicir father. After
130. Mallowen, M. E. L., "A Mesopotamian Trilogy," Antiquity, June, 1939,
p.161.
131. Speiser, E. A., Mesopotamian Origins, Philadelphia, 1930.
132. Thompson, Campbell, in Man, Royal Anthropological Institute, vol.xxiii,
1923, p.81.
pg.3 of 6
they were displaced, these people seem to have been swallowed up by the Greek
population with whom they were subsequently confused. Munro says: (133)
The Pelasgic nation ceased to exist as such and the Ionian name was
adopted, probably among the mixed communities on the Asiatic side.
Perhaps because the Pelasgians were not Greek speaking people, they were
the more readily equated by the Greeks, who tended to lump all foreigners
together, with the Etruscans who were also non-Greeks. Yet they appear not to
have been, in fact, the same people. We have, therefore, possibly a group of
"Eberites" achieving some notoriety for a time in the early world, only to
disappear by being displaced from their primary settlement and swallowed up in
the melee of people who populated the Aegean area.
Their ancestor, Peleg, received his name because of an event which has been

variously interpreted. In the Book of Jasher (2:11), which is ascribed to Alcuin
and is very likely spurious, there is an interesting observation with respect to
this man:
It was Peleg who first invented the hehge and the ditch, the wall and
bulwark: and who by lot divided the lands among his brethren.
Jamieson (134) in his Commentary believes that the event in view was a
formal division of the earth made by oah, acting under divine impulse, between
his three sons. It is proposed that further reference to this event is to be found in
Deuteronomy 32:8 and Acts 17:24 26. Peter Lange (135) refers to a work by
Fabri entitled, "Origin of Heathenism," dated 1859, in which the author
interprets the expression as having reference to a catastrople which violently
split up the earth into its present continental masses. (136) This was, of course,
long before Wegener, Taylor, and Du Toit published their ideas on the subject of
Continental Drift, a subject currently very much alive.
One more word about Peleg: In the International Standard Biblical
Encyclopedia reference is made to a Babylonian geographic fragment (80-6-17,
504) which has a series of ideographs
133. Munro, J. A. R., "Pelasgians and lonians" in a communication in American
Journal of Archaeology, Apr.-June, 1935, p.265.
131. Jamieson, R., Commentary Critical, Experimental and Practical on the Old
and ew Testament, vol.1, Genesis-Dueteronomy, Collins, Glasgow, 1871, p.118.
131. Lange, Peter, Commentay on Genesis, Zondervan, no date, p.350.
136. Custance, Arthur, Doorway Paper o. 56, "When the Earth was Divided".
ot included in The Doorway papers Series.
pg.4 of 6
tentatively read out as Pulukku, perhaps a modified form of Peleg. This is
followed by the words "Sha ebirti," which could either signify "Pulukku who
was of Eber," or it could be a composite phrase "Pulukku-of-the-Crossing."
Conceivably a settlement of Pelegites was established on the river at a fordable
point, this river afterwards receiving the name Hebrus. Whatever the truth of
the matter, the word "Peleg" seems somehow to have come down to us also
through Greek in the form "pelagos," meaning "sea." If there is a real
connection this might suggest a further idea, namely, that the "division" took
place when men began to migrate for the first time by water. The phrase "the
earth was divided" would be interpreted to mean "the peoples of the earth were
divided," i.e., by water.
This is speculative indeed, yet on the whole one has the impression that
"Peleg" was important enough to have his name retained in various forms which
reflect the brief note which appears in Genesis 10.
A word should now be said about the sons of Joktan, thirteen in all, every one
of whom appears to have settled in Arabia, chiefiy in the south. Almodad is
perhaps traceable to Al Mudad; Sheleph, in Yemen represented by Es Sulaf, and

perhaps being the Salapeni of Ptolemy; Hazarmaveth, today Hadramaut; Jerah,
adjoining the latter, being possibly found in the name of a fortress, Jerakh;
Hadoram, represented by the Adramitae in Southern Arabia, mentioned by
Pliny and Ptolemy; Uzal, which is probably the old name of the capital of
Yemen; Diklah, a place of some importance in Yemen, known as Dakalah; Obal,
preserved perhaps in several localities in south Arabia, under the name Abil;
Abimael is completely unidentified; Sheba might suggest the Sabeans; Ophir,
perhaps represented by Aphar, the Sabaean capital of which Ptolemy speaks
under the name Sapphara (Geog. 6.7) and which is possibly modern Zaphar;
Havilah, the district in Arabia Felix, known as Khawlan; and Jobab, usually
identified with the Jobarites mentioned by Ptolemy among the Arabian tribes of
the south, and which it is suggested was misread by him as Iobabitai, instead of
an original Iobaritai.
The first boundary referred to in Genesis 10:30 perhaps refers to Massa (see
Genesis 25:14), a northern Arabian tribe, about midway between the Gulf of
Akaba and the Persian Gulf. On the other hand, there is a seaport called Mousa,
or Moudza, mentioned by Ptolemy, Pliny, Arrian and other ancient geographers
pg.5 of 6
perilaps representing the place mentioned here. This was a town of some
importance in classical times, but has since fallen into decay, if the modern
"Mousa" is the same place. Gesenius, from the latitude given by Ptolemy, places
Mesha at Maushid, on the west coast of Yemen. If the latter is correct, then the
second geographical locality is perhaps to be found in Sephar, a mount of the
east, which is to be understood as being the Sipar, listed along with Elam and
Susa, mentioned in a text found at Susa. This note in Genesis 10 would then
mean that the thirteen sons of Joktan settled between these two points, and the
location of Ophir would seem to be settled within the peninsula, not at the mouth
of the Indus as some have thought.
There have been many occasions in the above remarks to observe what is only
to be expected of this very early date, namely, the proximity to one another of
representatives of the three branches of oah's farmily. It is not to be thought
for one moment that Shemites, Hamites, and Japhethites each went their own
way without intermarriage and subsequent intermingling. It should not,
therefore, surprise one to find in this Table that the same name may reappear in
two different sections of oah's family. Thus we read of two people named
Sheba, one in verse 7 as a son of Cush and one in verse 28 as a son of Joktan.
Rawlinson (137) explains how linguistic evidence demonstrates the early
existence of at least two races in Arabia: "one, in the northern and central
regions, Semitic, speaking the tongue usually known as Arabic; and another in
the more southern regions, which is non-Semitic, and which from the
resemblance of its language to the dialects of the aboriginals of Abysinnia, the
descendants of ancient Ethiopians, deserves to be called Ethiopian or Cushite."
This is not a case of erroneous duplication, therefore, but an indirect
confirmation of the truthfulness of the record, since it would have been even
more surprising if, at that tirne, there had been no such name-sharing among the

different families.
Thus far, then, what evidence we do have bearing directly upon this ancient
Table of ations consistently tends towards its vindication as a document which
is both etymologically sound and historically of great irmportance.
137. Rawlinson, G., The Origin of ations, Scribners, ew York, 1878, p.209.
Chapter 5
Tbe Widening Circle
IT SEEMS unlikely, even making all conceivable allowances for gaps in the
text, which some are persuaded must exist, that one could push back the date of
the Flood and with it the date of the events outlined in this Table of ations,
beyond a few thousand years B.C. At the very most these events can hardly have
occurred much more than 6000 years ago and personally, I think 4500 years is
closer to the mark. In this case, we are forced to conclude that, except for those
who lived between Adam and oah and were overwhelmed by the Flood and
whose remains I believe are never likely to be found, all fossil men, all
prehistoric peoples, all primitive communities extinct or living, and all
civilizations since, must be encompassed within this span of a few thousand
years. And on the face of it, the proposal seems utterly preposterous.
However, in this chapter I hope to show that there are lines of evidence of
considerable substance in support of the above proposition. In setting this forth,
all kinds of "buts" will arise in the reader's mind if he has any broad knowledge
of current physical anthropology. An attempt is made to deal with some of these
"buts" in four other Doorway Papers: "Fossil Man and the Genesis Record",
"Primitive Cultures: Their Historical Origins", "Longevity in Antiquity and Its
Bearing on Chronology", and "The Supposed Evolution of the Human Skull".
Yet some problems remain unsolved. However, one does not have to solve every
problem before presenting an alternative view.
It is our contention that oah and his wife and family were real people, sole
survivors of a major catastrophe, the chief effect of which was to obliterate the
previous civilization that had developed from Adam to that time. When the Ark
grounded,
* Custance, Arthur, "Fossil Man and the Genesis Record", Part I and
"Primitive Cultures: Their Historical Origins", Part II and "The Supposed
Evolution of the Human Skull", Part IV, in Genesis and Early Man,in Genesis
and Early Man, vol.2; "Longevity in Anitquity and Its Bearing on Chronology",
Part I in The Virgin Birth and the Incarnation, vol.5 all in The Doorway
Papers Series.
pg 1 of 23

there were 8 people alive in the world, and no more. Landing somewhere in
Armenia, they began to spread as they multiplied, though retaining for some
time a homogeneous cultural tradition. The initial family pattern, set by the
existence in the party of three sons and their wives, gave rise in the course of
time to three distinct racial stocks who, according to their patriarchal lineage,
are most properly termed Japhethites, Hamites, and Shemites, but in modern
terminology would be represented by the Semitic people (Hebrews, Arabs, and
ancient nations such as Babylonians, Assyrians, etc.), the Mongoloid and
egroid Hamites, and the Caucasoid Japhethites.
At first they kept together. But within a century or so they broke up into
small groups, and subsequently some of the family of Shem, most of the family of
Ham, and a few of the family of Japheth arrived from the east in the
Mesopotamian Plain (Genesis 11:2). Here it would appear from evidence
discussed elsewhere that the family of Ham, who had become politically
dominant, initiated a movement to prevent further dispersal by proposing the
building of a monument as a visible rallying point on the flat plain, thus bringing
upon themselves a judgment which led to an enforced and rapid scattering
throughout the earth.
This circumstance accounts for the fact that in every part of the world where
Japheth has subsequently migrated he has always been preceded by Ham a fact
which applies in every continent. In prehistoric times this is always found to be
true, the earliest fossil remains being egroid or Mongoloid in character, but
those who followed were not. Indeed, in protohistoric times whatever cultural
advances the pioneering Hamites had achieved tended to be swallowed up by the
succeeding Japhethites. The record of Japheth's more leisurely spread over the
earth has been marred by the destruction of both the culture and their Hamite
creators wherever the Japhethites arrived in sufficient force to achieve
dominion. This happened in the Indus Valley, it happened in Central America, it
happened to the Indian tribes of orth America, it happened in Australia, and
only numerical superiority has hitherto preserved Africa from the same fate.
The indebtedness of Japheth to Ham for his pioneering contribution in
mastering the environment is amply explored and documented in Part IV of this
volume, "The Technology of Hamitic People," and its complement, Part I, "The
Part Played by Shem, Ham, and Japheth in Subsequent World History." The
evidence will not be repeated here.
pg.2 of 23
ow, in spite of South African discoveries of recent years, it still remains true
that whether we are speaking of fossil man, ancient civilizations, contemporary
or extinct native peoples, or the present world population, all lines of migration
that are in any way still traceable are found to radiate from the Middle East.
The pattern is as follows. Along each migratory route settlements are found,
each of which differs slightly from the one that preceded it and the one that
follows it. As a general rule, the direction of movement tends to be shown by a
gradual loss of cultural artifacts, which continue in use back along the line but

either disappear entirely forward along the line or are crudely copied or merely
represented in pictures or in folklore. When several lines radiate from a single
centre, the picture presented is more or less a series of ever increasing circles of
settlement, each sharing fewer and fewer of the original cultural artifacts which
continue at the centre. At the same time completely new items appear, which are
designed to satisfy new needs not found at the centre. The further from the
centre one moves along such routes of migration, the more new and uniquely
specific items one is likely to find which are not shared by other lines, but there
remain some recollections of a few particularly important or useful links with
the original homeland. Entering such a settlement without previous knowledge
of the direction from which the settlers came, one cannot be certain which way
relationships are to be traced. There is, however, usually some dependable piece
of evidence which allows one to separate the artifacts which have been brought
in from those that have been developed on the site. This is particularly the case
whenever complex items turn up requiring materials which would not be
available locally. Sometimes the evidence is secondhand, existing in the presence
of an article which is clearly a copy and has something about its construction
which proves it to be so. For example, certain Minoan pottery vessels are clearly
copies of metal prototypes, both in the shape they take and in their
ornamentation. (138) Where the pottery handles of these vessels join the vessel
itself, little knobs of clay are found which serve no functional purpose, but which
are clearly an attempt to copy the rivets which once secured the metal handle to
the metal body of the prototype. These prototypes are found in Asia Minor, and
it is therefore clear
138. See on this J. D. S. Pendlebury, The Archaeology of Crete, Methuen,
London, 1939, p.68 and V. G. Childe, Dawn of European Civilization, Kegan
Paul, 5th edition, 1950, p.19.
pg.3 of 23
which way the line of migration is to be traced, for it is inconceivable that the
pottery vessel with its little knobs of clay provided the metal worker with the
clues as to where he should place his rivets.
In the earliest migrations which, if we are guided by the chronology of
Scripture, must have been quite rapid, it was inevitable that the tendency would
be more markedly towards a loss of cultural items common to the centre as one
moves out, rather than a gain of new items. (139) Thus the general level of
culture would decline, although oral traditions, rituals, and religious beliefs
would change more slowly. In due time, when a large enough body of people
remained in any one place, a new "centre" would arise with many of the old
traditions preserved but some new ones established with sufficient vigour to send
out waves of influence both forwards and backwards along the line.
Accompaning such cultural losses in the initial spread of the Hamitic peoples
would be a certain coarsening of physique. ot only do people tend to be in
many cases unsuited for the rigours of pioneering life and be culturally degraded
as a consequence, but the nourishment itself often is grossly insufficient or

unsuitable, and their bodies do not develop normally either. As Dawson has
observed, (140) the more highly cultured an immigrant is when he arrives, the
more severely he is handicapped and likely to suffer when robbed of the familiar
accouterments of his previous life. This has been noted by those who have
studied the effects of diet on the human skull for example, and this subject is
dealt with in some detail in "The Supposed Evolution of the Human Skull"
(contained in vol.2 of this series); and with respect to culture, in "Primitive
Cultures: Their Historical Origins" (in vol.2) .
The occasional establishment of what might be called "provincial" cultural
centres along the various routes of migration has greatly complicated the pattern
of relationships in protohistoric times, yet the evidence which does exist, for all
its paucity at times, strongly supports a Cradle of Mankind in the Middle East
from which there went out successive waves of pioneers who were neither Indo-
Europeans nor Shemites. These were Hamitic pioneers, either Mongoloid or
egroid in type with some admixture, who blazed trails and opened up
territories in every
139. Perry, W. J., The Growth of Civilization, Pelican, 1937, p.123.
140 Dawson, Sir William, 'I'he Story of the Earth and Man, Hodder and
Stoughton, London, 1903, p.390.
pg.4 of 23
habitable part of the earth and ultimately established a way of life in each
locality which at a basic level made maximum use of the raw materials and
resources of that locality. The Japhethites followed them, building upon this
foundation and taking advantage of this basic technology in order to raise in
time a higher civilization, sometimes displacing the Hamites entirely, sometimes
educating their teachers in new ways and then retiring, and sometimes
absorbing them so that the two racial stocks were fused into one.
So much for the broad picture We shall now turn to a more detailed
examination of the evidence that (a) the dispersion of man took place from a
centre somewhere in the Middle East, and (b) that those who formed the
vanguard were of Hamitic stock.
Before man's evolutionary origin was proposed it was generally agreed that
the Cradle of Mankind was in Asia Minor, or at least in the Middle East. Any
evidence of primitive types elsewhere in the world, whether living or fossil, were
considered proof that man became degraded as he departed from the site of
Paradise. When Evolution seized the imagination of anthropologists, primitive
fossil remains were at once hailed as proof that the first men were
constitutionally not much removed from apes. One problem presented itself
however, the supposed ancestors of modern man always seemed to turn up in tle
wrong places. The basic assumption was still being made that the Middle East
was the home of man and therefore these primitive fossil types, which were
turning up anywhere but in this area, seemed entirely misplaced. Osborn, in his
Men of the Old Stone Age, accounted for this anomaly by arguing that they were

migrants. (141) He asserted his conviction that both the human and animal
inhabitants of Europe, for example, had migrated there in great waves from Asia
and from Africa. He wrote, however, that it was probable that the source of the
migratory waves was Asia, north Africa being merely the route of passage. This
was his position in 1915, and when a third edition of his famous book appeared
in 1936, he had modified his original views only slightly. He had a map of the
Old World with this subscription, "Throughout this long epoch Western Europe
is to be viewed as a peninsula, surrounded on all sides by the sea and stretching
westwards from the great land mass of eastern Europe and Asia -- which was the
chief theatre of evolution, both of animal and human life."
141. Osborn, H. F., Men of the Old Stone Age, ew York, 1936, pp.19ff.
pg.5 of 23
However, in 1930, and contrary to expectations, Prof. H. J. Fleure had to
admit: (142)
o clear traces of the men and cultures of the later part of the Old Stone
Age (known in Europe as the Aurignacian, Solutrean, and Magdalenian phases)
have been discovered in the central highland of Asia.
The situation remained essentially the same when W. Koppers in 1952
observed: (143)
It is a remarkable fact that so far all the fossil men have been found in
Europe, the Far East, and Africa, that is, in marginal regions of Asia that are
most unlikely to have formed the cradle of the human race. o remains are
known to us from central Asia where most scholars who have occupied
themselves with the origin of men would place the earliest races.
It is true that some fossil men have now been found in the Middle East, but far
from speaking against this area as being central to subsequent migration, they
seem to me to speak indirectly -- and therefore with more force -- in favour of it.
We shall return to this subsequently.
Prof. Griffith Taylor of the University of Toronto, speaking of migratory
movements in general, whether in prehistoric or historic times, wrote: (144)
A series of zones is shown to exist in the East Indies and in Australasia
which is so arranged that the most primitive are found farthest from Asia, and
the most advanced nearest to Asia. This distribution about Asia is shown to be
true in the other "peninsulas" [i.e., Africa andEurope, ACC], and is of
fundamental importance in discussing the evolution and ethnological status of
the peoples concerned. . . .
Which ever region we consider, Africa, Europe, Australia, or America, we
find that the major migrations have always been from Asia.

After dealing with some of the indices which he employs for establishing
possible relationships between groups in different geographical areas, he
remarks: (145)
How can one explain the close resemblance between such far-distant types
as are here set forth? Only the spreading of racial zones from a common cradle-
land [his emphasis] can possibly explain these biological affinities.
142. Fleure, H. J., The Races of Mankind, Benn, London, 1930, p.45.
143. Koppers, W., Primitive Man and His World Picture, Sheed and Ward, ew
York, 1952, p.239.
144. Taylor, Griffith, Environment, Race and Migration, University of Toronto
Press, 1945, p.8.
145. Ibid., p.67.
pg.6 of 23
Then, subsequently, in dealing with African ethnology, he observes: (146)
The first point of interest in studying the distribution of the African
peoples is that the same rule holds good which we have observed in the
Australasian peoples. The most primitive groups are found in the regions most
distant from Asia, or what comes to the same thing, in the most inaccessible
regions. . . .
Given these conditions its seems logical to assume that the racial zones can
only have resulted from similar peoples spreading out like waves from a
common origin. This cradleland should be approximately between the two
"peninsulas," and all indications (including the racial distribution of India)
point to a region of maximum evolution not far from Turkestan. It is not
unlikely that the time factor was similar in the spread of all these peoples.
In a similar vein Dorothy Garrod wrote: (147)
It is becoming more and more clear that it is not in Europe that we must
seek the origins of the various paleolithic peoples who successfully overran the
west. . . . The classification of de Mortillet therefore only records the order of
arrival [my emphasis] in the West of a series of cultures, each of which has
originated and probably passed through the greater part of its existence
elsewhere.
So also wrote V. G. Childe: (148)
Our knowledge of the Archaeology of Europe and of the Ancient East has
enormously strengthened the Orientalist's position. Indeed we can now survey
continuously interconnected provinces throughout which cultures are seen to be
zoned in regularly descending grades round the centres of urban civilization in
the Ancient East. Such zoning is the best possible proof of the Orientalist's

postulate of diffusion.
Henry Field in writing about the possible cradle of Homo sapiens, gives a very
cursory review of the chief finds of fossil man (to that date, 1932), including
finds from Pekin, Kenya Colony, Java, Heidleberg, (Piltdown), and Rhodesia,
and then gives a map locating them; and he remarks: (149)
146. Ibid., pp.120, 121.
147. Garrod, Dorothy, " ova et Vetera: A Plea for a ew Method in Paleolithic
Archaeology," Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society of East Anglia, vol.5, p.261.
148. Childe, V. G., Dawn of European Civilization, Kegan Paul, London, 3rd
edition, 1939. In the 1957 edition, Cllilde in his introduction invites his readers to
observe that he has modified his "dogmatic" orientation a little but he still
concludes at the end of the vohlme (p.342), "the primacy of the Orient remains
unchallenged."
149 Field, Henry, "The Cradle of Homo Sapiens," American Journal of
Archaeology, Oct.-Dec., 1932, p.427.
pg.7 of 23
It does not seem probable to me that any of these localities could have been
the original point from which the earliest men migrated. The distances,
combined with many geographical barriers, would tend to make a theory of this
nature untenable. I suggest that an area more or less equidistant from the outer
edges of Europe, Asia, and Africa, may indeed be the centre in which
development took place.
It is true that these statements were written before the recent discoveries in
South Africa, or in the Far East at Choukoutien, or in the ew World. Of the
South African finds little can be said with certainty and there is no unanimity as
to their exact significance. The finds at Choukoutien, as we shall attempt to
show, actually support the present thesis in an interesting way. As for the ew
World, nobody has ever proposed that it was the Cradle of Mankind. Thus the
Middle East still retains priority as the probable original Home of Man.
evertheless, as to dating, it must be admitted that no authority with a
reputation at stake would ever propose it was a homeland so recently as our
reckoning of only 4500 years ago. The time problem remains with us and at the
moment we have no answer to it, but we can proceed to explore the lines of
evidence which in all other respects assuredly support the thesis set forth earlier
in this chapter.
Part of this evidence, curiously, is the fact of diversity of physical type found
within what appear to have been single families. This has been a source of some
surprise and yet is readily accounted for on the basis of a central dispersion.
Some years ago, W. D. Matthew made the following observation: (150)
Whatever agencies may be assigned as the cause of evolution in a race, it
should be at first most progressive at its point of original dispersal, and it will

continue this process at that point in response to whatever stimulus originally
caused it, and will spread out in successive waves of migration, each wave a stage
higher than the preceding one. At any one time, therefore, the most advanced
stages should be nearest the centre of dispersal, the most conservative stages the
furthest from it.
Some comment is in order on this observation because there are important
implications in it. Lebzelter (151) pointed out that "where man lives in large
conglomerations, race (i.e., physical form) tends to be stable while culture
becomes specialized: where he lives in small isolated groups, culture is stable but
150. Matthew, W. D., "Climate and Evolution," Annals of the ew York
Academy of Science, vol.24, 1914, p.80.
151. Lebzelter: quoted by W. Koppers in his Prirnitive Man, p.220. His view was
sustained by LeGros Clark, JRAI (Journal of the Royal Archaeological
Institute), vol. 88, Pt. 2, July-Dec., 1958, p.133.
pg.8 of 23
Fig. 3. The approximate locations of the fossils remains or primitive peoples in
this volume.
1. eanderthal Man (in 4. Cromagnon Man 7. Kangera 13.
Obercassel 19. Folsom
Palestine), M. es Skhul, 5. Solo Man 8. Florisbad 14. La Chapelle 20.
Lagoa Santa
Mugharit-et-Tabun Pithecanthropus erectus 9. Fontechevade 15.
Grimaldi 21. Olduvai
2. Swanscombe Man, 6. Pekin Man, 10. Heidelberg 16. Krapina 22. Canstadt
Galley Hill Sinanthropus and 11. Mauer Jaw 17. Talgai
3. Rhodesian Man Choukoutien 12. La Quina Woman 18.
Hotu
pg.9 of 23
specialized races evolve." According to Lebzelter, this is why racial
differentiation was relatively marked in the earlier stages of man's history. The
explanation of this fact is clear enough. In a very small closely inbreeding
population, genes for odd characters have a much better chance of being
homozygously expressed so that such characters appear in the population with
greater frequency, and tend to be perpetuated. On the other hand, such a small
population may have so precarious an existence that the margin of survival is too
small to encourage or permit cultural diversities to find expression. Thus
physical type is variant but is accompanied by cultural conformity, whereas in a
large and well-established community, a physical norm begins to appear as
characteristic of that population, but the security resulting from numbers allows

for a greater play of cultural divergence.
At the very beginning, we might therefore expect to find in the central area a
measure of physical diversity and cultural uniformity: and at each secondary or
provincial centre in its initial stages, the same situation would reappear. The
physical diversity to be expected on the foregoing grounds, would, it is now
known, be exaggerated even further by the fact (only comparatively recently
recognized) that when any established species enters a new environment it at
once gives expression to a new and greater power of diversification. Many years
ago, Sir William Dawson remarked upon this in both plant and animal biology.
(152) From a study of post-Pliocene molluscs and other fossils, he concluded that
"new species tend rapidly to vary to the utmost extent of their possible limits and
then to remain stationary for an indefinite time." An explanation of this has
been proposed recently by Colin H. Selby in the Christian Graduate. (153) The
circumstance has been remarked upon also by Charles Brues, (154) who adds
that "the variability of forms is slight once the population is large, but at first is
rapid and extensive in the case of many insects for which we have the requisite
data." Further observations on this point were made by Adolph Schultz in
discussing primate populations in the 1950 Cold Springs Harbor Symposium.
(155)
152. Dawson, Sir William, The Story of the Earth, Hodder and Stoughton,
London, 1903, p.360.
153. Selby, Colin H., in a "Research ote," in the Christian Graduate, IVF,
London, 1956, p.99.
154. Brues, Charles, "Contribution of Entomology to Theoretical Biology,"
Scientific Monthly, Feb., 1947, pp.123ff., quoted at p.130.
155. Schultz, Adolph, "The Origin and Evolution of Man," Cold Springs Harbor
Symposium on Quantitative Biology, 1950, p.50.
pg.10 of 23
Thus we have in reality three factors, all of which are found to be still in
operation in living populations, which must have contributed to the marked
variability of early fossil remains particularly where several specimens are found
in a single site as at Choukoutien for example, or at Obercassel, or Mount
Carmel.
These factors may be summarized as follows: (a) A new species is more
variable when it first appears; (b) A smal1 population is more variable than a
large one; (c) When a species or a few members of it shift into a new
environment, wide varieties again appear which only become stable with time.
To these should be added a fourth, namely, that small populations are likely to
be highly conservative in their culture, thus maintaining many links though
widely extended geographically.
Fossil remains constantly bear witness to the reality of these factors, but this
has meaning only if we assume that a small population began at the centre and,
as it became firmly established there, sent out successive waves of migrants
usually numbering very few persons in any one group, who thereafter

established a further succession of centres, the process being repeated again and
again until early rman had spread into every habitable part of the world. Each
new centre at the first showed great diversity of physical type but as they
multiplied a greater uniformity was achieved in the course of tine. Where such a
subsidiary centre was wiped out before this uniformity had been achieved but
where their remains were preserved, the diversity was, at it were, captured for
our examination. At the same time, in marginal areas where individuals or
families were pushed by those who followed them, circumstances often combined
to degrade them physically so that fossil man tended toward a bestial form -- but
for secondary reasons. On the other hand, in the earliest stages of these
migrations cultural uniformity would not only be the rule in each group but
necessarily also between the groups. And this, too, has been found to be so to a
quite extraordinary degree. Indeed, following the rule entunciated above, the
most primitive groups -- those which had been pushed furthest to the rim might
logically be expected to have the greatest cultural uniformity, so that links would
not be surprising if found between such peripheral areas as the ew World,
Europe, Australia, South Africa, and so forth, which is exactly what has been
observed.
Such lines of evidence which we shall explore a little further, force upon us
the conclusion that we should not look to these
pg.11 of 23
marginal areas, to primitive contemporaries or to fossil remains, for a picture of
the initial stages of man's cultural position. It is exactly in these marginal areas
that we shall not find them. The logic of this was both evident to and flatly
rejected by E. A. Hooten who remarked: (156)
The adoption of such a principle would necessitate the conclusion that the
places where one finds existing primitive forms of any order of animal are
exactly in the places where these animals could not have originated. . . .
But this is the principle of lucus a non lucendo, i.e., finding light just where
one ought not to do so, which pushed to its logical extreme would lead us to seek
for the birthplace of man in that area where there are no traces of ancient man
and none of any of his primate precursors [my emphasis].
William Howells has written at some length on the fact that, as he puts it, "all
the visible footsteps lead away from Asia.'' (157) He then examines the picture
with respect to the lines of migration taken by the "Whites" and surmises that at
the beginning they were entrenched in southwest Asia "apparently with the
eanderthals to the north and west of them." He proposes that while most of
them made their way into both Europe and orth Africa, some of them may
have travelled east through central Asia into China, which would possibly
explain the Ainus and the Polynesians. He thinks that the situation with respect
to the Mongoloids is pretty straightforward, their origin having been somewhere
in the same area as the Whites, whence they peopled the East. The dark skinned
peoples are, as he put it "a far more formidable puzzle." He thinks that the

Australian aborigines can be traced back as far as India, with some evidence of
them perhaps in southern Arabia. Presumably, the African egroes are to be
derived also from the Middle East, possibly reaching Africa by the Horn and
therefore also via Arabia. However, there are a number of black-skinned peoples
who seem scattered here and there in a way which he terms "the crowning
enigma," a major feature of which is the peculiar relationships between the
egroes and the egritos. Of these latter, he has this to say: (158)
They are spotted among the egroes in the Congo Forest, and they turn up
on the eastern fringe of Asia (the Andaman Islands, the Malay Peninsula,
probably India, and possibly
156. Hooten, E. A., "Where Did Man Originate?" Antiquity, June, 1927, p.149.
157. Howells, Wm., Mankind So Far, Doubleday Doran, 1945, pp.295ff.
158. Ibid., pp.29S, 299.
pg.12 of 23
formerly in southern China), in the Philippines, and in ew Guinea, and
perhaps Australia, with probable traces in Borneo, Celebes, and various
Melanesian Islands.
All of these are "refuge" areas, and undesirable backwoods which the
Pygmies have obviously occupied as later more powerful people arrived in the
same regions. . . .
Several things stand out from these facts. The egritos must have had a
migration from a common point. . . . And it is hopeless to assume that their point
of origin was at either end of their range. . . . It is much more likely that they
came from some point midway, which is Asia.
There is, then, a very wide measure of agreement that the lines of migration
radiate not from a point somewhere in Africa, Europe, or the Far East, but from
a geographical area which is to be closely associated with that part of the world
in which not only does Scripture seem to say that man began peopling the world
after the Flood physically, but also where he began culturally. Looking at the
spread of civilization as we have looked at the spread of people, it is clear that
the lines follow the same course. The essential difference, if we are taking note of
current chronological sequences, is that whereas the spread of people is held to
have occurred hundreds and hundreds of thousands of years ago, the spread of
civilization is an event which has taken place almost within historic times.
One might postulate that those whose migration took place hundreds of
thousands of years ago and whose remains supply us with fossil man and
prehistoric cultures (Aurignacian, etc.) were one species; and that those who
initiated the basic culture in the Middle East area -- the watershed of all
subsequent historic cultures in the world -- were another species. Some have
tentatively proposed a concept such as this by looking upon eanderthal Man as
an earlier species or subspecies who was eliminated with the appearance of so-
called "modern man.'' (159) The association of eanderthals with moderns in

the Mount Carmel finds seems to stand against this conception. (160) And
indeed, there is a very widespread agreement today that, with the exception of
the most recent South African finds, al1 fossils, prehistoric, primitive, and
modern men are one species, Homo sapiens.
Ralph Linton viewed the varieties of men revealed by fossil
159. Weidenreich, Franz von, Palaeontologia Sinica, whole series o.127, 1943,
p.276; and see F. Gaynor Evans in Science, July, 1945, pp.16, 17.
160. Romer, Alfred, Man and the Vertebrates, University of Chicago Press, 1948,
pp.219, 221.
pg.13 of 23
finds to be due to factors which we have already outlined. As he put it: (161)
If we are correct in our belief that all existing men belong to a single species,
early man must have been a generalized form with potentialities for evolving
into all the varieties which we know at present. It further seems probable that
this generalized form spread widely and rapidly and that within a few thousand
years of its appearance small bands of individuals were scattered over most of
the Old World.
These bands would find themselves in many different environments, and
the physical peculiarities which were advantageous in one of these might be of no
importance or actually deleterious in another. Moreover, due to the relative
isolation of these bands and their habit of inbreeding, any mutation which was
favorable or at least not injurious under the particular circumstances would
have the best possible chance of spreading to all members of the group.
It seems quite possible to account for all the known variations in our
species on this basis, without invoking the theory of a small number of distinct
varieties.
Viewed in this light, degraded fossil specimens found in marginal regions
should neither be treated as "unsuccessful" evolutionary experiments towards
the making of true Homo sapiens types, nor as "successful," but only partially
complete phases or links between apes and men. Indeed, as Griffith Taylor was
willing to admit, (162) "the location of such 'missing' links as Pithecanthropus in
Java, etc., seemed to have little bearing on the question of the human
cradleland." He might in fact also have said the same on the question of human
origins. He concludes, "They are almost certainly examples of a . . . type which
has been pushed out to the margins."
Thus the way in which one studies or views these fossil remains is very largely
coloured by one's thinking whether it is in terms of biological or historical
processes. Prof. A. Portmann of Vienna remarked: (163)
One and the same piece of evidence will assume totally different aspects
according to the angle -- palaeontological or historical -- from which we look at
it. We shall see it either as a link in one of the many evolutionary series that the

paleontologist seeks to establish, or as something connected with remote
161. Linton, Ralph, The Study of Man, Student's edition, Appleton, ew York,
1936, p.26.
1945, p.282.
163. Portmann, A., "Das Ursprungsproblem," Eranos-Yahrbuch, 1947, p.11.
pg.14 of 23
historical actions and developrnents that we can hardly hope to reconstruct.
Let me state clearly that for my part I have not the slightest doubt that the
remains of early man known to us should all be judged historically.
This same approach toward the meaning of fossil man has been explored in
some detail by Wilhelm Koppers who thinks that "primitiveness in the sense of
man being closer to the beast" can upon occasion be the "result of a secondary
development." (164) He believes that it would be far more logical to "evolve"
eanderthal Man out of Modern Man than Modern Man out of eanderthal
Man. He holds that eanderthal was a specialized and more primitive type, but
later than modern man, at least in so far as they occur in Europe.
Such a great authority as Franz von Weiderlreich (165) was also prepared to
admit unequivocably, "no fossil type of man has been discovered so far whose
characteristic features may not easily be traced back to modern man" [my
emphasis]. This agrees with the opinion of Griffith Taylor, (166) who observed,
"Evidence is indeed accumulating that the paleolithic folk of Europe were much
more closely akin to races now living on the periphery of the Euro-African
regions than was formerly admitted." Many years ago, Sir William Dawson
pursued this same theme and explored it at sorne length in his beautifully
written, but almost completely ignored work, Fossil Man and Their Modern
Representatives. Though at one time the unity of man was questioned, we see
that it was not questioned by all.
On almost every side we are now being assured that the human race is, as
Scripture says, "of one blood," a unity which comprehends ancient and modern,
primitive and civilized, fossil and contemporary man. It is asserted by Ernst
Mayr, (167) by Melville Herskovits, (168) by W. M. Krogman, (169) by Leslie
White, (170)
164. Koppers, W., Primitive Man and His World Picture, Sheed and Ward, ew
York, 1952, pp.220, 224.
165. Weidenreich, Franz von, Apes, Giants and Man, University of Chicago
Press, 1948, p.2.
166. T'aylor, Griffith, Environment, Race and Migration, University of Toronto,
1945, pp.46, 47.
167. Mayr, Ernst, "The Taxonomic Categories in Fossil Hominids," Cold
SpringsHarbor Symposium, vol15, 1950, p.117.
168. Herskovits, Melville, Man and His Works, Knopf, ew York, 1950, p.103.

169. Krogman, W. M., ''What We Do ot Krow About Race," Scientific
Monthly, Aug., 1943, p.97, and subsequently, Apr., 1948, p.317.
170. White, Leslie, "Man's Control over Civilization: An Anthropocentric
Illusion," Scientific Monthly, Mar., 1948, p.238.
pg.15 of 23
by A. V. Carlson, (171) by Robert Redfield, (172) and indeed by U ESCO. (173)
At the Cold Springs Harbor Symposium on "Quantitative Biology" held in 1950,
T. D. Stewart, (174) in a paper entitled, "Earliest Representatives of Homo
Sapiens," stated his conclusions in the following words, "Like Dobzhansky,
therefore, I can see no reason at present to suppose that more than a single
hominid species has existed on any time level in the Pleistocene." Alfred Romer
(175) observed in commenting on the collection of fossil finds from Palestine
(Mugharet-et-Tabun, and Mugharetes-Skubl), "While certain of the skulls are
clearly eanderthal, others show to a variable degree numerous neanthropic
(i.e., "modern man") features." Subsequently he identifies such neanthropic
skulls as being of the general Cro-Magnon type in Europe - a type of man who
appears to have been a splendid physical specimen. He proposes later that the
Mount Carmel people "may be considered as due to interbreeding of the
dominant race (Cro-Magnon Man) with its lowly predecessors ( eanderthal
Man)." Thus the picture which we once had of ape-like half-men walking with a
stooped posture, long antedating the appearance of "true" Man, has all been
changed with the accumulation of evidence. These stooped creatures now are
known to have walked fully erect, (176) their cranial capacity usually exceeding
that of modern man in Europe (if this means anything); and they lived side by
side with the finest race (physically speaking) which the world has probably ever
seen.
As an extraordinary example of the tremendous variability which an early,
small isolated population can show, one cannot do better than refer to the finds
at Choukoutien in China, (177) from the same locality in which the famous Pekin
Man was
171. Carlson, A. V., in his retiring address as President of the American
Association of Advanced Science, Science, vol.103, 1946, p.380.
172. Redfield, Robert, "What We Do Know About Race," Scientific Monthly,
Sept., 1943, p.193.
173. U ESCO: Provisional draft: given as of May 21st, 1952, in Man, Royal
Anthropological Institute, June, 1952, p.90.
174. Stewart, T. D., "Earliest Representatives of Homo sapiens", Cold Springs
Harbor Symposium, vol.15, 1950, p.105.
pp.219, 221.
176. eanderthal erect: first reported by Sergio Sergi in Science, supplement 90,
1939, p.13; contrast with M. C. Cole, The Story of Man, Chicago, 1940,
frontispiece facing p.13: and note that Cole's reconstruction of a stooped
eanderthal, for popular consumption, appeared one year later than the report

in Science.
177. For a useful and early summary report, see "Homo sapiens at
Choukoutien," ews and otes, Antiquity, June, 1939, p.242.
pg.16 of 23
found. These fossil remains came from what is known as the Upper Cave,
consisting of seven individuals, who appear to be members of one family: an old
man judged to be over 60, a younger man, two relatively young women, an
adolescent, a child of five, and a newborn baby. With them were found
implements, ornaments, and thousands of fragments of animals.
Study of these remains has produced some remarkably interesting facts. The
most important in the present context is that, judged by cranial form, we have in
this one family a representative eanderthal Man, a "Melanesian" woman who
reminds us of the Ainu, a Mongolian type, and another who is rather similar to
the modern Eskimo woman. In commenting on these finds Weidenreich
expressed his amazement at the range of variation: (178)
The surprising fact is not the occurrence of paleolithic types of modern
man which resemble racial types of today, but their assemblage in one place and
even in a single family, considering that these types are found today settled in far
remote regions.
Forms similar to that of the "Old Man" as he has been named, have been
found in Upper Paleolithic, western Europe and northern Africa; those closely
resembling the Melanesian type, in the neolithic of Indo-China, among the
ancient skulls from the Cave of Lagoa Santa in Brazil, and in the Melanesian
population of today; those closely resembling the Eskimo type occur among the
pre-Columbian Amerindians of Mexico and other places in orth America, and
among the Eskimos of western Greenland of today.
Weidenreich then proceeds to point out subsequently that the upper
Paleolithic melting-pot of Choukoutien "does not stand alone.'' (179) In
Obercassel in the Rhine Valley were found two skeletons, an old male and a
younger female, in a tomb of about the same period as the burial in
Choukoutien. He says, "The skulls are so different in appearance that one would
not hesitate to assign them to two races if they came from separate localities." So
confused is the picture now presented that he observes: (180)
Physical anthropologists have gotten into a blind alley so far as the
definition and the range of individual human races and their history is
concerned. . . .
But one cannot push aside a whole problem because the methods applied
and accepted as historically sacred have gone awry.
178. Weidenreich, F., Apes, Giants, and Man., University of Chicago Press, 1948,
p.87.
179. Ibid., p.88.

180. Ibid.
pg.17 of 23
This extraordinary variability nevertheless still permits the establishment of
lines of relationshlip which appear to crisscross in every direction as a dense
network of evidence that these fossil remains for the most part belong to a single
family.
Griffith Taylor links together Melanesians, egroes, and American Indians.
(181) The same authority proposes a relationship between Java Man and
Rhodesian Man. (182) He relates certain Swiss tribes which seem to be a pocket
of an older racial stock with the people of northern China, the Sudanese, the
Bushmen of South Africa, and the Aeta of the Plilippines. (183) He would also
link the Prednost Skull to Aurignacian folk and to the Australoids. (184)
Macgowan (185) and Montagu (186) are convinced that the aboriginal
populations of central and southern America contain an element of egroid as
well as Australoid people. Grimaldi Man is almost universally admitted to have
been egroid even though his remains lie in Europe, (187) and indeed so
widespread is the egroid type that even Pithecanthropus erectus was identifed
as egroid by Buyssens.(188)
Huxley maintained that the eanderthal race must be closely linked with the
Australian aborigines, particularly from the Province of Victoria; (189) and
other authorities hold that the same Australian people are to be related to the
famouls Canstadt Race. (190) Alfred Romer relates Solo Man from Java with
Rhodesian Man from Africa. (191) Hrdlicka likewise relates the Oldoway Skull
with LaQuina Woman; LaChapelle and others to the basic African stock, (192)
and holds that they must also be related to
1945, p.11.
182. Ibid., p.60. His argument here is based on head form, which he considers
conclusive.
183. Ibid., p.67. He feels only a "common cradle-land" can possibly explain the
situation.
184. Ibid., p.134.
185. Macgowan, K, Early Man in the ew World, Macmillan, ew York, 1950,
p.26.
186. Montagu, Ashley, Introduction to Physical Anthropology, Thomas,
Springfield, Illinois, 1947, p.113.
187. Weidenreich, Franz, Apes, Giants, and Man, University of Chicago Press,
1948, p.88.
188. Buyssens, Paul, Les Trois Races de Europe et du Monde, Brussels, 1936. See
G. Grant McCurdy, American Journal of Archaeology, Jan.-Mar., 1937, p.154.
l89. Huxley, Thormas, quoted by D. Garth Whitney, "Primeval Man in
Belgiurn," Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol.40,1908, p.38.
190. According to Whitney, see above, p.38.

p.223.
192. Hrdlicka, Ales, "Skeletal Remains of Early Man," Smithsonian Institute,
Miscellaneous Collections, vol.83, 1930, p.342f'f.
pg.18 of 23
Indian, Eskimo and Australian races. Even the Mauer Jaw is held to be Eskimo
in type. (193)
We cannot do better than sum up this general picture in the words of Sir
William Dawson who, far in advance of his time, wrote in 1874: (194)
What precise relationship do these primitive Europeans bear to one
another? We can only say that all seem to indicate one basic stock, and this is
allied to the Hamitic stock of northern Asia which has its outlying branches to
this day both in America and in Europe.
While it is perfectly true that the thesis we are presenting has, in the matter of
chronology, the whole weight of scientific opinon against it, it is nevertheless
equally true that the interpretation of the data in this fashion makes wonderful
sense and, indeed, would have allowed one to predict both the existence of
widespread physical relationships as well as an exceptional variableness within
the members of any one family. In addition to these physiological linkages there
are, of course, a very great many cultural linkages. As a single example the
painting of the bones of the deceased with red ochre, a custom which not so very
long ago was still being practiced by the American Indians, has been observed in
prehistoric burials in almost every part of the world. Surely such a custom could
hardly arise everywhere indigenously on some such supposition as that "men's
minds work everywhere pretty much the same. . . ." It seems much more
reasonable to assume it was spread by people wlo carried it with them as they
radiated rapidly from some central point.
This brings us once more to the question of the geographical position of this
Cradle. Evidence accumulates daily that as a cultured being the place of man's
origin was somewhere in the Middle East. o other region in the world is as
likely to have been the Home of Man, if by man we mean something more than
merely an intelligent ape. Vavilov (195) and others (196) have repeatedly pointed
out that the great majority of the cultivated
193. Ibid., p.98. And see William S. Laughton, "Eskimos and Aleuts: Their
Origins and Evolution," Science, vol.142, 1963, p.639, 642.
194. Dawson, Sir William, "Primitive Man," Transactions of the Victoria
195. Vavilov, . I., "Asia, the Source of species", Asia, Feb., 1937 p.113.
196. Cf. Harlan, J. R., " ew World Crop Plants in Asia Minor," Scientific
Monthly, Feb., 1951, p.87.
pg.19 of 23

plants of the world, especially the cereals, trace their origin there. Henry Field
remarks: (197)
Iran may prove to have been one of the nurseries of Homo sapiens. During
the middle or upper Paleolitllic periods the climate, flora, and fauna of the
Iranian Plateau provided an environment suitable for human occupation.
Indeed, Ellsworth Huntington has postulated that during late Pleistocene times
southern Iran was the only [his emphasis] region in which temperature and
humidity were ideal, not only for human conception and fertility but also for
chances of survival.
Many speculations exist as to the routes taken by Caucasoids, egroids, and
Mongoloids, as the world was peopled by the successive ebb and flow of
migrations. Howells, (198) Braidwood, (199) Taylor, (200) Goldenweiser, (201)
Engberg, (202) Weidenreich, (203) Cole, (204) and others, (205) have tackled the
problem or have expressed opinions based on the study of fossil remains; and of
course, Coon's Races of Europe is largely concerned with the same problem.
(206) ot one of these can really establish how man originated, but almost all of
them make the basic assumption that western Asia is his original home as a
creature of culture. From this centre one can trace the movements of an early
migration of egroid people followed by Caucasoid people in Europe. From this
same area undoubtedly there passed out into the East and the ew World
successive waves of Mongoloid people. In Africa Wendell Phillips, (207) after
studying the relationships of various African tribes, concluded that evidence
already existed making it possible to derive certain of the tribes from a
197. Field, Henry, "The Iranian Plateau Race," Asia, Apr., 1940, p.217.
198. Howells, Wm., Mankind So Far, Doubleday Doran, ew York, 1945,
pp.192, 203, 209, 228, 234, 238, 247, 289, and 290.
199. Braidwood, Robert, Prehistoric Man, atural History Museum, Chicago,
1948, pp.96, 106.
200. Taylor, Griffith, Environment, Races and Migration, University of Toronto,
1945, pp.88, 115, 123, 164, and 268.
201. Goldenweiser, Alexander, Anthropology, Crofts, ew York, 1945, pp.427,
492.
202. Engberg, Martin, Dawn of Civilization, University of Knowledge Series,
Chicago, 1938, p.154.
203. Weidenreich, Franz von, Apes, Giants, and Man, University of Chiccago
Press, 1948, p.65.
204. Cole, M. C., The Story of Man, University of Knowledge Series, Chicago,
1940.
205. See, for example, Boule, M. and H. V. Vallois, Fossil Man, Dryden Press,
ew York, 1957, pp.516-522, an evaluation of various views.
206. Coon, C. S., The Races of Europe, macMillan, 1939, see especially Chapter
5.
207. Phillips, Wendell, "Further African Studies," Scientific Monthly, Mar.,
1950, p.175.

pg.20 of 23
single racial stock (particularly the Pygmies of the Ituri Forest and the Bushmen
of the Kalahari Desert), which at a certain time must have populated a larger
part of the African continent only to retreat to less hospitable regions as later
egroid tribes arrived in the country. Prof. H. J. Fleure held that evidence of
similar nature towards the north and northeast of Asia and on into the ew
World was to be discerned by a study in the change of head forms in fossil
remains. (208) Wherever tradition is clear on the matter, it invariably points in
the same direction and tells the same story.
Thus we conclude that from the family of oah have sprung all the peoples of
the world -- prehistoric, protohistoric, and historic. And the events described in
connection with Genesis 10 and the prophetic statements of oah with respect to
the future of his three sons together combine to provide us with the most
reasonable account of the early history of mankind, a history which, rightly
understood, does not at all require us to believe that man began with the stature
of an ape and only reached a civilized state after a long, long evolutionary
history.
In summary, then, what we have endeavoured to show in this chapter is as
follows:
(1) The geographical distribution of fossil remains is such that they are most
logically explained by treating them as marginal representatives of a widespread
and in part forced dispersion of people from a single multiplying population
established at a point more or less central to them all, and sending forth
successive waves of migrants, each wave driving the previous one further toward
the periphery;
(2) The most degraded specimens are those representatives of this general
movement who were driven into the least hospitable areas, where they suffered
physical degeneration as a consequence of the circumstances in which they were
forced to live;
(3) The extraordinary physical variability of fossil remains results from the
fact that the movements took place in small, isolated, strongly inbred bands; but
the cultural similarities which link together even the most widely dispersed of
them indicate a common origin for them all;
(4) What I have said to be true of fossil man is equally true of living primitive
societies as well as those which are now extinct;
208. Fleure, H. J., The Races of Mankind, Benn, London, 1930, pp.43, 44.
pg.21 of 23
(5) All the initially dispersed populations are of one basic stock -- the Hamitic
family of Genesis 10;
(6) The initial Hamitic settlers were subsequently displaced or overwhelmed
by Indo-Europeans (i.e., Japhethites), who nevertheless inherited, or adopted,

and extensively built upon Hamitic technology and so gained an advantage in
each geographical area where they spread;
(7) Throughout the great movements of people, both in prehistoric and
historic times, there were never any human beings who did not belong within tle
family of oah and his descendants;
(8) Finally, this thesis is strengthened by the evidence of history which shows
that migration has always tended to follow this pattern, has frequently been
accompanied by instances of degeneration both of individuals or whole tribes,
usually resulting in the establishment of a general pattern of cultural
relationships which parallel those archaeology has revealed.
The tenth clapter of Genesis stands between two passages of Scripture to
which it is related in such a way as to shed light on both of them. In the first,
Genesis 9:20 27, we are given an insight into the relationship of the descendants
of the three sons of oah throughout subsequent history, Ham doing great
service, Japhet being enlarged, and Shem's originally appointed place of
responsibility being ultimately assigned to Japheth. We are not told here the
nature of Ham's service, nor how Japheth would be enlarged nor what special
position Shem was ultimately to surrender to his brother. In the second passage,
Genesis 11:1 9, we are told that there was but a single language spoken by all
men until a plan was proposed that led to the dramatic scattering of the planners
over the whole earth.
In the centre stands Genesis 10, supplying us with vital clues to the
understanding of these things by tclling us exactly who the descendants were of
each of these three sons. With this clue, and with the knowledge of history which
we now have, we can see the significance of both passages. We now understand
in what way Ham became a servant of his brethren, in what way Japheth's
spread over the earth could be called an enlargement rather than a scattering,
and in what circumstances Shem has surrendered his position of special
privilege and responsibility to Japheth. We could not fully perceive how these
prophetic statements had been fulfilled without our knowledge of who
pg.22 of 23
among the nations were Hamites and who were Japhethites. And this knowledge
we derive entirely from Genesis 10.
Furthermore, the real significance of the events which surrounded and
stemmed from the abortive plan to build the Tower of Babel would similarly be
lost to us except for the knowledge that it was Ham's descendants who paid the
penalty. This penalty led to their being scattered very early and forced them to
pioneer the way in opening up the world for human habitation, a service which
they rendered with remarkable success but no small initial cost to themselves.
Moreover, if we consider the matter carefully, we shall perceive also the great
wisdom of God who, in order to preserve and perfect His revelation of Himself,
never permitted the Shemites to stray far from the original cultural centre in
order that He might specially prepare one branch of the family to carry this
Light to the world as soon as the world was able to receive it. For it is a principle

recognized in the ew Testament by our Lord when He fed the multitudes
before He preached to them and borne out time and again in history, that
spiritual truth is not well comprehended by men whose struggle merely to
survive occupies all their energies.
Thus where Ham pioneered and opened up the world to human occupation,
Japheth followed at a more leisurely pace to consolidate and make more secure
the initial "dominion" thus achieved. And then -- and only then -- was the world
able and prepared to receive the Light that was to enlighten the Gentiles and to
cover the earth with the knowledge of God as the waters cover the sea.
Footnote on the time taken for early migrations.
Kenneth Macgowan shows that with respect to a Middle East "Cradle of
Man," the most distant settlement is that in the very southern tip of South
America, 15,000 miles approximately. How long would such a trip take? He says
that it has been estimated that men might have covered the 4000 miles from
Harbin, Manchuria, to Vancouver Island, in as little as 90 years (Early Man in
the ew World, Macmillan, 1950, p.3 and rnap on p.4) .
What about the rest of the distance southward? Alfred Kidder says, "A
hunting pattern based primarily on big game could have carried man to
southern South America without the necessity at that time of great localized
adaptation. It could have been effected with relative rapidity, so long as camel,
horse, sloth, and elephant were available. All the indications point to the fact
that they were." (Appraisal of Anthropology Today, University of Chicago
Press, 1953, p.46.)
COFFMA , “Verse 1
Toledoth IV (Genesis 10:1)
Christians should not ignore this chapter, the fundamental teaching of which is
that all the nations of earth are descended from a single ancestor and that,
therefore, all the peoples of the earth are of "one blood" (Acts 17:26). There are
no critical difficulties whatever in Genesis 10, for this record is the only
document that has descended through the centuries to shed light upon the
particular facts here related. How does one contradict something with nothing?
Satan did the only thing he could do, that is, resort to the imaginations of wicked
men, those imaginations, of course, being the only source of such alleged prior
documents as "P" and "J." Until Satan can produce those documents and
submit them to the same kind of examination that the Bible has encountered,
they should not enter in any manner whatsoever into the interpretation of these
pages. We cannot believe that there ever were any such documents! It is
impossible to prove the existence of documents that have never been seen, that
have never received even one mention throughout the ages of human history,
and the content of which has never been determined. In the light of such facts,
and these facts cannot be denied, how futile and worthless is the pedantic

gobbledegook concerning which verses of this chapter belong either to "P" or to
"J" or to "RP" or to "XYZ." What is written here is the unique source of all the
information humanity has concerning the origin of the nations.
Here we shall vary a little from our usual method. Instead of writing in full each
of the 32 verses, we shall give a chart setting forth visually the descent of all
nations from oah's three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
JAPHETH
GOMER Descendants of Gomer have been assigned to
the Caspian and Black Sea areas (Pulpit Commentary),
and to Germany (Teachers' Bible Commentary).
Ashkenaz Wales, Brittany (Old Testament Commentary);
Germany (Flavius Josephus).
Riphath orth Europe (Old Testament Commentary);
Phrygia (Flavius Josephus).
Togarmah Armenians (Old Testament Commentary).
MAGOG Caucasians (Flavius Josephus),
Medes, Kurds, Armenians (Old Testament Commentary).
MADAI The Ionians (Old Testament Commentary),
or the Medes (Flavius Josephus).
JAVA Thessalay (Flavius Josephus),
Sicily (Old Testament Commentary),
or Greece (Teachers' Bible Commentary).
Elishah
Tarshish Spain, Tuscany, Tarsus in Cilicia (Old Testament Commentary)
and (Flavius Josephus). Spain is most certainly correct.
Kittim Cyprus (Henry M. Morris)

Dodanim Rhodes (J. R. Dummelow's Commentary)
TUBAL The Tibereni (J. R. Dummelow's Commentary)
MESCHECH The Moschi southeast of the Black Sea (J. R. Dummelow's
Commentary)
Moscow (Teachers' Bible Commentary)
TIRAS The Thracians (Flavius Josephus)
HAM
CUSH These were the Ethiopians or Africans.
Seba The kingdom of Meroe (Old Testament Commentary)
Havilah These and the next four populated the coasts of Sabtah
Arabia and Africa along the Red Sea (J. R. Dummelow's Commentary)
Raamah
Sheba
Dedan
Sabteca
imrod Babylon, Assyria, ineveh
MIZRAIM The Egyptians (Henry M. Morris)
Ludim The Moors
Anamin The Egyptian Delta
Lehabin
aphtuhim
Pathrusim
Casluhim Philistines
Caphtorim Crete (J. R. Dummelow's Commentary)

Philistines were also here (Amos 9:7).
PUT
CA AA These peoples populated the land of Canaan, Palestine.
Sidon Identified with the city of that name
Heth
Jebusites The original inhabitants of Judea
Amorites
Girgashite
Hivite They settled near Mount Hermon.
Arkite
Sinite Lebanon or Mount Sinai
Arvadite
Zemarite
Hamathite
SHEM
ELAM
ASSHUR The Assyrians
ARPACHSHAD The Chaldeans (Flavius Josephus)
Shelah
Eber Father of the Hebrews.
Peleg "The Earth was divided" (Genesis 10:25).
Joktan
Almodad

Sheleph
Hazermaveth
Jerah
Hadorum
Uzal
Diklah
Obal
Abimael
Sheba
Ophir 60 miles north of Bombay (Unger's Bible Commentary)
Havilah
Jobab
LUD These were the Lydians of Asia Minor
ARAM Aramaeans of Syria (Damascus) and Mesopotamia
Uz
Hul
Gether
Mash
It is clear enough that these lists are incomplete and selective. The sacred writer
did not design them to be exhaustive in this report but merely to show that all
the peoples of the earth descended from a SI GLE ancestor. It is also noted that
sometimes the names of people, clans, or nations are substituted for the names of
individuals, which meant it was impossible to ascertain in some cases.
Generally speaking, the sons of Japheth went north, those of Ham went south
and southeast, and the Shemites went eastward. Josephus affirmed that the
Shemites went all the way to the coast of India, an opinion apparently having
some confirmation in the Semitic appearance of the orth and South American
Indians. His comment:

"Shem, the third son of oah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began
at the Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean."[1]
It is admitted even by critical opponents of the Bible that this tenth chapter of
Genesis is a "remarkably accurate historical document."[2] The descendants of
Japheth settled primarily in Asia Minor and Europe, those of Ham populated
Africa, Arabia, and Egypt, with the sons of Canaan occupying primarily the
land that bore their name in perpetuity. The sons of Shem occupied the Tigris-
Euphrates valley, spreading eastward and beyond into Asia. Of course, only the
beginning of nations appears here. All of the peoples descended from oah
spread rapidly over the earth, and there were many overlapping districts in
which the various families were commingled. The basis for postulating a two-
source origin of this chapter is, as Aalders said, "facetious."Genesis 1 (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), p. 216.">[3] Here stands the
unique record of the derivation of all the peoples of the earth from the patriarch
oah, thus establishing in the most convincing manner the unity of mankind.
Among the questions which have concerned Bible students of this chapter are:
"The generations of oah ..." The Hebrew word for "generations" here is
[~toledowth], the great word that denotes the ten divisions of Genesis; and, "It
never tells how persons or things came into being."[4] The word invariably deals
with developments that came after such things or persons were already in
existence.
CO STABLE, “Verses 1-9
E. What became of oah"s sons10:1-11:9
This section gives in some detail the distribution of oah"s descendants over the
earth after the Flood (cf. Genesis 9:18-19).
This fourth toledot section ( Genesis 10:1 to Genesis 11:9) brings the inspired
record of primeval events to a climax and provides a transition to the patriarchal
narratives. All the nations of the world in their various lands with their different
languages descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Of special interest to the
original Israelite readers were the Canaanites and the other ancient ear
Eastern powers.
"From this section we learn that the "blessing" is for all peoples because all
nations have their source in the one Prayer of Manasseh , oah, whom God
favored. Moreover, the disunity among oah"s offspring that resulted from the
tower event [ Genesis 11:1-9] did not prevent the blessing God had envisioned
for humanity." [ ote: Mathews, p427.]
"The Tower of Babel incident ( Genesis 11:1-9), though following the table in the
present literary arrangement, actually precedes chronologically the dispersal of
the nations. This interspersal of narrative ( Genesis 11:1-9) separates the two
genealogies of Shem ( Genesis 10:21-31; Genesis 11:10-26), paving the way for

the particular linkage between the Terah (Abraham) clan and the Shemite
lineage ( Genesis 11:27). The story of the tower also looks ahead by anticipating
the role that Abram ( Genesis 12:1-3) will play in restoring the blessing to the
dispersed nations." [ ote: Ibid, p428.]
1. The table of nations ch10
This table shows that Yahweh created all peoples (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8; Amos
9:7; Acts 17:26). Like the genealogy in chapter5 , this one traces10 main
individuals, and the last one named had three sons.
This chapter contains one of the oldest, if not the oldest, ethnological table in the
literature of the ancient world. It reveals a remarkable understanding of the
ethnic and linguistic situation following the Flood. Almost all the names in this
chapter have been found in archaeological discoveries in the last century and a
half. Many of them appear in subsequent books of the Old Testament.
". . . the names in chapter10 are presented in a dissimilar manner: the context
may be that of an individual (e.g, imrod), a city (e.g, Asshur), a people (e.g,
Jebusites) or a nation (e.g, Elam).
"A failure to appreciate this mixed arrangement of Genesis 10 has led, we
believe, to numerous unwarranted conclusions. For example, it should not be
assumed that all the descendants of any one of oah"s sons lived in the same
locality, spoke the same language, or even belonged to a particular race." [ ote:
Barry J. Beitzel, The Moody Atlas of Bible Lands, p76. See pages76-79 for
discussion of each name in chapter10.]
"The table of nations is a "horizontal" genealogy rather than a "vertical" one
(those in chaps5,11are vertical). Its purpose is not primarily to trace ancestry;
instead it shows political, geographical, and ethnic affiliations among tribes for
various reasons, most notable being holy war. Tribes shown to be "kin" would
be in league together. Thus this table aligns the predominant tribes in and
around the land promised to Israel. These names include founders of tribes,
clans, cities, and territories." [ ote: Ross, " Genesis ," p42.]
In contrast to the genealogy in chapter5 , this one lists no ages. It contains place
and group names, which are spoken of as the ancestors of other places or
groups, as well as the names of individuals. God built nations from families.
Thus it is quite clearly a selective list, not comprehensive. The writer"s choice of
material shows that he had particular interest in presenting Israel"s neighbors.
Israel would deal with, displace, or subjugate many of these peoples, as well as
the Canaanites (ch9). They all had a common origin. Evidently70 nations
descended from Shem, Ham, and Japheth: 26 from Shem, 30 from Ham,
and14from Japheth (cf. Deuteronomy 32:8). Seventy became a traditional round
number for a large group of descendants. [ ote: Wenham, Genesis 1-15 , p213.]
Jacob"s family also comprised70 people ( Genesis 46:27), which may indicate

that Moses viewed Israel as a microcosm of humanity as he presented it here.
God set the microcosm apart to bless the macrocosm.
Japheth"s descendants ( Genesis 10:2-5) settled north, east, and west of Ararat.
[ ote: For helpful diagrams showing the generational relationships of the
descendants of Japheth, Ham, and Shem respectively, see Mathews, pp440 , 444 ,
and459.] Their distance from Israel probably explains the brief treatment that
they received in this list compared with that of the Hamites and Shemites. The
"coastlands" ( Genesis 10:5) are the inland areas and the northern
Mediterranean coastlands on the now European shore from Turkey to Spain.
The dispersion of the nations "according to . . . language" ( Genesis 10:5) took
place after Babel (ch11) all along these coasts as well as elsewhere. [ ote: For
discussion of the identities of each name, see Wenham, Genesis 1-15 , pp216-32;
or the ET Bible notes on these verses.]
Ham"s family ( Genesis 10:6-20) moved east, south, and southwest into
Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Africa. Canaan"s descendants ( Genesis 10:15-21) did
not migrate as far south but settled in Palestine. [ ote: For explanation of the
locations the individuals, cities, tribes, and nations cited in this table, see Allen P.
Ross, "The Table of ations in Genesis 10 -Its Content," Bibliotheca
Sacra138:549 (January-March1981):23-31.] The length of these Hamite
Canaanite lists indicates the importance of these people and places in Israel"s
later history. ote the absence of the common sevens in the structuring in
Canaan"s genealogy, suggesting chaos. [ ote: Waltke, Genesis , pp164-65.]
It is possible that Sargon of Agade, whom many secular historians regard as the
first ruler of Babylon, may be the imrod (meaning "We shall rebel") of Genesis
10:8-10. [ ote: Oliver R. Blosser, "Was imrod-Sargon of Agade, the First King
of Babylon?" It"s About Time (June1987), pp10-13.] Many people in ancient
times had more than one name. Reference to him probably foreshadows Genesis
11:1-9.
"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 ear Eastern documents
does not serve as a definitive source for designating ethnicity. Moreover,
linguistic evidence does not always assure true ethnic derivation." [ ote:
Mathews, p456. See also The ew Bible Dictionary, 1962ed, s.v. "Amorites," by
A. R. Millard.]
Shem"s posterity ( Genesis 10:21-31) settled to the northeast and southeast of the
Canaanites. This branch of the human family is also important in the Genesis
record of Israel"s history.
"When the two lines of Shem are compared ( Genesis 10:21-31; Genesis 11:10-
26), there is a striking divergence at the point of Eber"s descendants, Peleg and
Joktan [ Genesis 10:25]. In chap10 Peleg is dropped altogether after his mention,

while the nonelect line of Joktan is detailed. It is left to the second lineage in
chap11to trace out Peleg"s role as ancestral father of Abraham ..." [ ote:
Mathews, p459.]
"This Table of ations, then, traces affiliation of tribes to show relationships,
based on some original physical connections.
"It is clear that the writer is emphasizing the development of these nations that
were of primary importance to Israel (yalad sections) within the overall
structure of the Table (b"ne arrangement)." [ ote: Allen P. Ross, "The Table of
ations in Genesis 10 -Its Structure," Bibliotheca Sacra137:548 (October-
December1980):350. See also Eugene H. Merrill, "The Peoples of the Old
Testament according to Genesis 10 ," Bibliotheca Sacra154:613 (January-
March1997):3-22.]
"The three geographical arcs of the branches intersect at the center-that Isaiah ,
Canaan, Israel"s future homeland." [ ote: Mathews, p433. See Yohanan
Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas, map15.]
This section reveals that it was God"s plan to bless the human race by dividing
the family of man by languages, locations, and leaders. God formerly blessed the
earth by dividing the light from the darkness, the earth from the heavens, and
the land from the seas (ch1). Some creationists believe that the division of the
earth in Peleg"s day ( Genesis 10:25) refers to continental drift, but many
creationists do not hold this view. [ ote: For a creationist discussion of the
subject of continental drift, see Ham, et al, pp11-12 , 41-63; or David M. Fouts,
"Peleg in Genesis 10:25 ," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society41:1
(March1998):17-21.]
"By correlating the number of nations [in ch10 , i.e, 70] with the number of the
seed of Abraham [in Genesis 46:27], he [the writer] holds Abraham"s "seed"
before the reader as a new humanity and Abraham himself as a kind of second
Adam, the "father of many nations" ( Genesis 17:5)." [ ote: Sailhamer, The
Pentateuch . . ., p131.]
". . . his intention is not to give an exhaustive list but rather a representative list,
one which, for him, is obtained in the number seven." [ ote: Ibid, p132.]
"The table"s figure of "seventy" for the world"s nations is alluded to by Jesus
in the sending forth of the seventy disciples, as recounted by Luke ( Genesis
10:1-16). Here the evangelist emphasizes the mission of the church in its
worldwide evangelistic endeavors." [ ote: Mathews, p437. See also Umberto
Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis. Part II. From oah to
Abraham, pp175-80.]
LA GE, “Verses 1-32

THIRD SECTIO
The Ethnological Table.
Genesis 10:1-32
1 ow these are the generations [genealogies] of the sons of oah; [they were]
Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and unto them were sons born after the flood.
1. The Japhethites ( Genesis 10:2-5).
2The Sons of Japheth; Gomer [the Cimmerians, in the Taurian Chersonesus;
Crimea], and Magog [Scythians], and Madai [Medes], and Javan [Ionians], and
Tubal [Tibereni], and Meschech3[Moschi], and Tiras [Thracians]. And the sons
of Gomer[F 1]; Ashkenaz1 [Germans, Asen], and Riphath [Celts,
Paphlagonians], and Togarmah [Armenians]. 4And the sons of Javan[F 2];
Elishah2 [Elis, Æolians], and Tarshish [Tartessus; Knobel: Etruscans], Kittim
[Cyprians, Carians], and Dodanim [Dardanians]. 5By these Were the isles
[dwellers on the islands and the coasts] of the Gentiles [the heathen] divided
[F 3] in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their
nations.
2. The Hamites ( Genesis 10:6-20).
6And the sons of Ham; Cush [Æthiopians], and Mizraim[F 4] [Egyptians], and
Phut7[Lybians], and Canaan [Canaanites, Lowlanders]. And the sons of Cush;
Seba [Meroe], and Havilah [Abyssinians], and Sabtah [Æthiopians in Sabotha],
and Raamah [Eastern Arabians], and Sabtecha [Æthiopian Caramanians]: and
the sons of Raamah; Sheba and Dedan8[Sabæan and Dadanic Cushites, on the
Persian Gulf]. And Cush begat imrod [we will rebel]: Hebrews 9 began to be a
mighty one in the earth. He was [he became] a mighty hunter before the Lord
[F 5]; wherefore it is said, Even as imrod [is he] the mighty hunter before the
Lord 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel [Babylon, see ch. xi9], and
Erech [Orchoe], and Accad, and Calneh [Ktesiphon], in the land of Shinar
[Babylonia]. 11Out of that land went forth Asshur[F 6] [Assyrians], and
builded ineveh [city of inus], and the city Rehoboth12[city markets], and
Calah [Kelach and Chalach; completion], And Resen [bridle] between ineveh
and Calah; the same is a great city 13 And Mizraim begat Ludim [Berbers?
Mauritanian races], and Anamim [inhabitants of the Delta], and Lehabim
[Libyans of Egypt], and aphtuhim14[middle or lower Egyptians], And
Pathrusim [upper Egyptians], and Casluhim [Cholcians], out of whom came
Philistim [emigrants, new comers], and Caphtorim [Cappadocians? Cretans?].
15And Canaan begat Sidon [Sidonians, fishers?] his firstborn, and Heth
[Hittites, terror], 16And the Jebusite [Jebus, Jerusalem, threshing-floor], and the
Amorite [inhabitants of the hills], and the Girgasite [clay, or marshy soil], 17And
the Hivite [paganus?], and the Arkite [inhabitants of Arka, at the foot of
Lebanon], and the Sinite [in Sinna, upon Lebanon], 18And the Arvadite

Arabians on the island Arados, north of Tripolis], and the Zemarite [inhabitants
of Simyra, on the western foot of Lebanon], and the Hamathite [Hamath, on the
northern border of Palestine]: and afterwards were the families of the
Canaanites spread abroad 19 And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon
as thou comest to Gerar [city of the Philistines], unto Gaza [city of Philistines,
stronghold]; as thou goest unto Sodom [city of burning], and Gomorrah [city of
the wood], and Admah [in the territory of Sodom, Adamah?], and Zeboim [city
of gazelles or hyenas], even unto Lasha [on the east of the Dead Sea, earth cleft].
20These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their
countries, and in their nations.
3. The Shemites ( Genesis 10:21-31).
21Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber [on the other side], the
brother of Japheth the elder [Lange, more correctly, translates, elder brother of
Japheth], even to him were children born 22 The children of Shem; Elam
[Elymæans, Persians], and Asshur [Assyrians], and Arphaxad [Arrapachitis, in
orthern Assyria, fortress, or territory of the Chaldæans], and Lud23[Lydians
in Asia Minor], and Aram [Aramæans in Syria, highlanders]. And the children o
Aram; Uz [Aisites? native country of Job], and Hul [Celo-Syria], and Gether
[Arabians], and Mash24[Mesheg, Syrians]. And Arphaxad begat Salah [sent
forth]; and Salah begat Eber [from the other side, emigrant, pilgrim]. 25And
unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg [division]; for in
his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan [diminished;
by the Arabians called Kachtan, ancestor of all the Arabian tribes]. 26And
Joktan begat Almodad [measured], and Sheleph [Salapenians, old Arabian tribe
of Yemen, drawers of the sword], and Hazarmaveth [Hadramath, in S. E.
Arabia, court of death], and Jerah [worshipper of the moon, on27 the Red Sea],
and Hadoram [Atramites, on the south coast of Arabia], and Uzal [Sanæ, a city
in Yemen], 28and Diklah [a district in Arabia, place of palm-trees], And Obal [in
Arabia, stripped of leaves], and Abimael [in Arabia, father of Mael, the
Minæans?], and Sheba [Sabæans, with their capital city, Saba], 29And Ophir [in
Arabia, probably on the Persian Gulf], and Havilah [probably Chaulan, a
district between Sanæ and Mecca, or the Chaulotæ, on the border of stony
Arabia], and Jobab: all these were sons of Joktan 30 And their dwelling was
from Mesha [according to Gesenius, Mesene, on the Persian Gulf], as thou goest
unto Sephar [Himyaric royal city in the Indian Sea, Zhafar], a mount of the east
31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their
lands, after their nations 32 These are the families of the sons of oah, after
their generations [genealogies], in their nations: and by these were the nations
divided in the earth after the flood.
GE ERAL REMARKS O THE ETH OLOGICAL TABLE, OR THE
GE EALOGICAL TREE OF THE ATIO S
1. The Literature.—See Matthew, p19; the present work, p119; Kurtz: “History
of the Old Testament,” p88; Knobel, p107; Keil, p108; a full and well-arranged

survey see in Delitzsch, p287; also the notes in Delitzsch, p629. See also the
articles, Babel, Babylon, ineveh, and Mesopotamia, in Herzog’s Real-
Encyclopedia. Layard’s account of “Excavations at ineveh,” together with the
“Description of a Visit to the Chaldæan Christians in Kurdistan, and to the
Jezidi or Worshippers of Satan.” German of Meissner, Leipsic, 1852. Here
belong also the “Ethnographical Works, or the ational Characteristics,” etc:
Lazarus and Steinthal. “Journal of Popular Psychology.” Berlin: Dumler, 1859.
Berghaus, Friedrich von Raumer, Vorlander, and others.
2. The basis of the genealogical table. According to Hävernik and Keil, this
document was grounded on very old tradition, and had its origin in the time of
Abraham. According to Knobel, the knowledge of the nations that is represented
in it, had its origin, in great part, in the connection of the Hebrews with the
Phœnician Canaanites. Delitzsch assigns its composition to the days of Joshua.
The signs of a high antiquity for this table present themselves unmistakably in
its ground features. There belong here: 1. The small development of the
Japhethan line; on which it may be remarked, that they were the people with
whom the Phœnicians maintained the most special intercourse; 2. the position of
the Æthiopians at the head of the Hamites, the historical notices of imrod, as
also the supposition that Sodom and Gomorrah were then existing; 3. the
discontinuance of the Jewish line with Peleg, as well as the accurate familiarity
with the branching of the Arabian Joktanites, who have as much space assigned
to them alone as to all the Japhethites, when for the commercial Phœnicians they
would be of least significance. The table indicates various circles of tradition—
more universal and more special. The Japhethan groups appear least developed.
Besides the seven sons, the grandchildren of Japheth are given only in the
descendants of Gomer and Javan, in the people of anterior Asia, and in the
inhabitants of the coasts and islands of the Mediterranean Sea. Magog, Madai,
Thubal, Meshech, and Tiras are carried no farther. The table certifies a very
copious tradition of the Hamites. First, there are mentioned the four sons of
Ham, then five sons of his firstborn, Cush, then the two sons of Raamah, the
fourth son of Cush. These two are, therefore, great-grandchildren of Ham.
imrod is next presented as a specially prominent son of Cush. Then follows the
second son of Ham, Mizraim, with six sons. The sixth, Casluhim, is again
presented in the mention of the Philistim and Caphtorim, who are, therefore,
also great-grandchildren of Ham. Phut, the fourth son of Ham, is the only one
who is carried no farther. The fifth, Canaan, appears with eleven sons; namely,
Sidon, the ancestor of the Phœnicians, and the heads of the other Canaanitish
tribes. Shem, finally, has five sons, of whom, again, Elam, Asshur, and Lud, are
no farther developed. The line of his Song of Solomon, Aram, appears in four
sons, grandchildren of Shem. Of the sons of Shem, Arphaxad is treated as most
important. The line goes from Shem through Arphaxad and Salah, even to the
great-grandchild, Eber. Eber forms the most important point of connection in
the Shemitic line. With his son Peleg the earth is divided; that Isaiah, there is
formed the strong monotheistic, Abrahamic line, in contrast with the line of his
brother Joktan and the Arabian Joktanites. Joktan is developed in thirteen sons,
great-grandchildren of Shem.

From this survey it appears: 1. That the table has a clear and full view of the
three ground-types or points of departure of the oachian humanity—Shem,
Ham, Japheth. It however, inverts the order of the names, because Shem, as the
ancestor of the people of the promise, is the peculiar point of aim in the
representation. Japheth, however, comes first, because, since the history of Israel
stands in nearest reciprocal connection with that of the Hamites, the Japhethites
in this respect take the background2. The table has, in like manner, a clear view
of the nearest descendants of the three sons of oah, of the seven sons of
Japheth, of the four sons of Ham, and the five sons of Shem. It presents us,
therefore, the sixteen ground-forms of commencing national formations3. In the
case of five sons of Japheth, one son of Ham, and three sons of Shem, the
genealogy is not carried beyond the grandchildren4. In respect to the
Japhethites, it does not, generally, go beyond the grandchildren; among the
Hamites it passes through the grandchild, Raamah, to the great-grandchildren;
Song of Solomon, likewise, through the grandchildren, the Casluhim; among the
Shemites, through Arphaxad, it proceeds to the great-great-grandchildren, and
these, through the great-great-grandchild, Joktan, are carried one step farther5.
The table occupies itself least with the Japhethans; beyond the Medes, the people
of Middle Asia and the eastern nations generally come no farther into the
account. It appears, however, to have little familiarity with the Phœnicians
proper, since it only makes mention of Sidon, whilst it exhibits a full
acquaintance with the Egyptians, with the inhabitants of Canaan, and with the
Arabian tribes. In this peculiar form of the table lies the mark of its very high
antiquity6. It contains three fundamental geographical outlines, one political,
and besides this, an important theocratic-ethnographic notice. Geographical: 1.
The mention of the spreading of the Javanites (Ionians) over the isles and coasts
of the Mediterranean; 2. the spreading of the Canaanites in Canaan; 3. the
extension of the Joktanites in Arabia. Political: The first founding of cities (or
states) by imrod. Theocratic: The division of the world in the time of Peleg, the
ancestor of Abraham.
Kurtz recommends the following as fundamental positions in deciding on the
names in the ethnological table: 1. The names denote, for the most part, groups
of people, whose name is carried back to the ancestor; the race, together with the
ancestor, forming one united conception2. Moreover, the one designation for a
land and its inhabitants, must not be misapprehended; for example, the names
Canaan, Aram, etc, pass over from the land to the people, and then from the
people to the ancestor3. In general, the table proceeds from the status in quo of
the present, solving the problem of national origin formally in the way of
evolution (unity for multiplicity), but materially in the way of reduction, in that
it carries back to unity the nations that lie within the horizon of the conceiving
beholder. The last position, however, hardly holds of the sons of oah himself;
just as little can it be applied to the genealogies of the Shemitic branching. In
regard, then, to the sources of the table, Kurtz also remarks: “together with
Hengstenberg and Delitzsch, we regard the sources of this ethnological table to
have been the patriarchal traditions, enriched by the knowledge of the nations

that had reached the Israelites through the Egyptians. Hengstenberg had
already begun to make available, in proof of this origin, the knowledge of the
peoples that was expressed on the Egyptian monuments. In assigning its
composition (as a constituent element of Genesis) to about the year1000 b. c,
Knobel must naturally regard the ethnological knowledge of the Phœnicians as
its true source.” On the significance of the table, the same writer (Kurtz)
remarks: “ ow that the sacred history is about to leave the nations to go their
own way, the preservation of their names indicates, that notwithstanding this,
they are not wholly lost to it, and that they are not forgotten in the counsel of
everlasting love. Its interest for the Old Testament history consists particularly
in this, that it presents so completely the genealogical position which Israel holds
among the nations of the earth. It Isaiah, moreover, like the primitive history
everywhere, in direct contrast with the philosophemes and myths of the
heathen.” In relation to the idea, that henceforth the nations are to be suffered to
go their own way, Keil reminds us of Acts 14:16; in relation to the prospect of
their restoration, he describes the ethnological table as a preparation for the
promise of the blessing which is to go forth from the promised race over all the
races of the earth ( Genesis 12:23). For the historicalness of the ethnological
table, Keil presents the following arguments: 1. That there is no trace of any
superiority claimed for the Shemites; 2. no trace of any design to fill up any
historical gaps by conjecture or poetic invention. This is seen in the great
differences in the narration as respects the individual sons of oah; in one case,
there is mention made only to the second; then again to the third and fourth
member; of many the ancestors are particularly mentioned; whilst in other cases
the national distinctions alone are specified; so that in respect to many names we
are unable to decide whether it is the people or the ancestor that is meant to be
denoted; and this is especially so because, by reason generally of the scantiness
and unreliability of ancient accounts that have come down to us from other
sources concerning the origin and commencements of the nations, many names
cannot be satisfactorily determined as to what people they really belong.
Against the certainty of this ethnological table, there have been made to bear the
facts of linguistic affinity. The Phœnicians and the Canaanites are assigned to
Ham, but their language is Shemitic. Tuch ascribes this position of the people
aforesaid among the Hamites to the Jewish national hatred, and would regard it
as false. But on the contrary, it must be remembered that the Jews,
notwithstanding their national hatred, never denied their kinsmanship with the
Edomites and others. Knobel solves the philological problem by the supposition
that the Canaanites who migrated to that country might have received the
Shemitic language from Shemites who had previously settled there. Add to this
that the affinity of the Phœnicians and Canaanites with the Hamitic nations of
the south seems to be established (Kurtz, p90; Kaulen, p235). As to what
concerns the Elamites on the Persian Gulf, we must distinguish them from the
eastern Japhethic Persians. Besides these philological difficulties, there has been
set in opposition to the ethnological table the hypothesis of autochthonic human
races. We have already spoken of this. And again, say some, how, in the space of
four hundred years, from oah till the Patriarchal time, could such a formation

of races have been completed? On that we would remark, in the first place, that
the American and Malayan races have only been known since the time of
modern voyages of discovery. The Mongolian race, too, does not come into the
account in the patriarchal age. There Isaiah, therefore, only the contrast
between the Caucasian and the Æthiopic. For the clearing up of this difficulty, it
is sufficient to note: 1. The extraordinary difference, which, in the history of
oah, immediately ensued between Shem and Japheth on the one side, and Ham
on the other; 2. the progressive specializing of the Hamitic type in connection
with the Hamitic spiritual tendency towards its passional and the sensual; 3. the
change that took place in the Hamitic type in its original yielding conformity to
the effect of a southern climate. The Hamitic type had, moreover, its universal
sphere as the Æthiopic race; this constituted its developed ground-form, whilst
single branches, on the other hand, through a progress of ennobling, might make
an approach to the Caucasian cultivation.[F 7] That Shem and Japheth,
however, in their nobler tendency, should unite in one Caucasian form, is not to
be wondered at. The great difference between the Shemitic type and the
Japhethan, as existing within the Caucasian, Isaiah, notwithstanding, fully
acknowledged. Since, however, the Shemitic type in its nobler branches, may
make transitions to the Caucasian; so also may separations from the Japhethic
and Shemitic form, perhaps, the Mongolian and the American races, in
consequence of a common tendency (see Kurtz, p80. “The Direction of the
oachidæ.”)
There have also been objected to the table chronological difficulties; in so far as
it forms a middle point for the assumption of Jewish and Christian chronology.
According to Bunsen, the time before Christ must be reckoned at20,000 years,—
namely, to the flood, 10,000, and from the flood to Abraham, 7,000 (see, on the
contrary, Delitzsch, p291). Taking these20,000 years, the ante-Christian
humanity loses itself in a Thohu Vabohu running through many thousand years
of an unhistorical, beastly existence, wherein the human spirit fails to find any
recognition of its nobility.
Delitzsch, in his admirable section on the ethnological table, remarks, p. Genesis
286: “The line of the promise with its chosen race, must be distinguished from
the confusion of the Gentiles; such is the aim of this great genealogical chart, and
in accordance with which it is constructed. It is a fundamental characteristic of
Israel, that it is to embrace all nations as partakers of a like salvation in a
participation of hope and love,—an idea unheard of in all antiquity beside.[F 8]
The whole ancient world has nothing to show of like universality with this table.
The earth-describing sections of the Epic poems of the Hindoos, and some of the
Puranas, go greatly astray, even in respect to India, whilst the nearest lands are
lost in the wild and monstrous account that is given of them. Their system of the
seven world islands (dvîpas) that lay around the Meru, seems occupied with the
worlds of gods and genii rather than with the world of man. (Lassen, in the
“Journal of Oriental Knowledge,” i. p341; Wilson, The Vishnu Purana).
owhere is there to be found so unique a derivation of the national masses, or so
universal a survey of the national connections. A tinge of hopeful green winds

through the arid desert of this ethnological register. It presents in perspective the
prospect that these far-sundered ways of the nations shall, at the last, come
together at the goal which Jehovah has marked. Therefore does Baumgarten
complete the saying of Johannes von Müller, “that history has its beginning in
this ethnological table,” with a second equally true, “that in it also, as its closing
limit, shall history find its end.” We may undervalue this table if we overlook the
fact that, in its actual historical and ethnological ground-features it presents,
symbolically, a universal image of the one humanity in its genealogical divisions.
We may overvalue it, or rather, set a false value upon it, when we attempt to
trace back to it, with full confidence, all the known nations now upon the earth.
Even the number70, as the universal symbol of national existences, can only be
deduced from it by an artificial method; as, for example, in Delitzsch, p289. It is
only in the symbolical sense that the catalogue may be regarded as amounting to
this number.
either can we derive this subdividing the nations to such a multiplicity of
national life, from the confusion of languages at Babel. The natural subdivision
of the people has something of an ideal aspect; the increased impulse given to it
at Babel had its origin in sin. We regard it, therefore, as a strong proof of the
canonical intuition that this ethnological table precedes instead of following the
history of the tower-building. Kurtz treats the history of Babel as earlier than
that of the register; and Keil, too, would seem inclined to identify the diversity of
the nations with the confusion of tongues (p107).
After these general remarks, we will confine ourselves to the most necessary
particulars.
CALVI
1. These are the generations . If any one pleases more accurately to examine the
genealogies related by Moses in this and the following chapter, I do not condemn
his industry. 306 And some interpreters have not unsuccessfully applied their
diligence and study to this point. Let them enjoy, as far as I am concerned the
reward of their labors. It shall, however, suffice for me briefly to allude to those
things which I deem more useful to be noticed, and for the sake of which I
suppose these genealogies to have been written by Moses. First, in these bare
names we have still some fragment of the history of the world; and the next
chapter will show how many years intervened between the date of the deluge and
the time when God made his covenant with Abraham. This second
commencement of mankind is especially worthy to be known; and detestable is
the ingratitude of those, who, when they had heard, from their fathers and
grandfathers of the wonderful restoration of the world in so short a time, yet
voluntarily became forgetful of the grace and the salvation of God. Even the
memory of the deluge was by the greater part entirely lost. Very few cared by

what means or for what end they had been preserved. Many ages afterwards,
seeing that the wicked forgetfulness of men had rendered them callous to the
judgment and mercy of God, the door was opened to the lies of Satan by whose
artifice it came to pass, that heathen poets scattered abroad futile and even
noxious fables, by which the truth respecting God’s works was adulterated. The
goodness of God, therefore, wonderfully triumphed over the wickedness of men,
in having granted a prolongation of life to beings so ungrateful, brutal, and
barbarous. ow, to captious men, (who yet do not think it absurd to refuse to
acknowledge a Creator of the world,) such a sudden increase of mankind seems
incredible, and therefore they ridicule it as fabulous. I grant, indeed, that if we
choose to estimate what Moses relates by our own reason, it may be regarded as
a fable; but they act very perversely who do not attend to the design of the Holy
Spirit. For what else, I ask, did the Spirit intend, than that the offspring of three
men should be increased, not by natural means, or in a common manner, but by
the unwonted exercise of the power of God, for the purpose of replenishing the
earth far and wide? They who regard this miracle of God as fabulous on account
of its magnitude, should much less believe that oah and his sons, with their
wives, breathed in the waters, and that animals lived nearly a whole year
without sun and air. This then, is a gigantic madness, 307 to hold up to ridicule
what is said respecting the restoration of the human race: for there the
admirable power of God is displayed. How much better would it be, in the
history of these events, — which oah saw with his own eyes, and not without
great admiration, — to behold God, to admire his power, to celebrate his
goodness, and to acknowledge his hand, not less filled with mysteries in
restoring, than in creating the world? We must, however, observe, that in the
three catalogues which Moses furnishes, 308 all the heads of the families are not
enumerated; but those only, among the grandsons of oah, are recorded, who
were the princes of nations. For as any one excelled among his brethren, in
talent, valor, industry, or other endowments, he obtained for himself a name and
power, so that others, resting under his shadow, freely conceded to him the
priority. Therefore, among the sons of Japheth, of Ham, and of Shem, Moses
enumerates those only who had been celebrated, and by whose names the people
were called. Moreover, although no certain cause appears why Moses begins at
Japheth, and descends in the second place to Ham, yet it is probable that the
first place is given to the sons of Japheth, because they, having wandered over
many regions, and having even crossed the sea, had receded farther from their
country: and since these nations were less known to the Jews, therefore he
alludes to them briefly. He assigns the second place to the sons of Ham, the
knowledge of whom, on account of their vicinity, was more familiar to the Jews.
But since he had determined to weave the history of the Church in one
continuous narrative, he postpones the progeny of Shem, from which the church
flowed, to the last place. Wherefore, the order in which they are mentioned is not
that of dignity; since Moses puts those first, whom he wished slightly to pass
over, as obscure. Besides, we must observe, that the children of this world are
exalted for a time, so that the whole earth seems as if it were made for their
benefit, but their glory being transient vanishes away; while the Church, in an
ignoble and despised condition, as if creeping on the ground, is yet divinely

preserved, until at length, in his own time, God shall lift up her head. I have
already declared that I leave to others the scrupulous investigation of the names
here mentioned. The reason of certain of them is manifest from the Scripture,
such as Cush, Mizraim, Madai, Canaan, and the like: in respect to some others
there are probable conjectures; in others, the obscurity is too great to allow of
any certain conclusion; and those figments which interpreters adduce are, in
part, very much distorted and forced; in part, vapid, and without any fair
pretext. Undoubtedly it seems to be the part of a frivolous curiosity to seek for
certain and distinct nations in each of these names. 309 When Moses says, that
the islands of the Gentiles were divided by the sons of Japheth, we understand
that the regions beyond the sea were parted among them. For Greece and Italy,
and other continental lands, — as well as Rhodes and Cyprus, — are called
islands by the Hebrews, because the sea interposed. Whence we infer that we are
sprung from those nations.
JFB
1. sons of oah--The historian has not arranged this catalogue according to
seniority of birth; for the account begins with the descendants of Japheth, and
the line of Ham is given before that of Shem though he is expressly said to be the
youngest or younger son of oah; and Shem was the elder brother of Japheth
(Ge 10:21), the true rendering of that passage.
generations, &c.--the narrative of the settlement of nations existing in the
time of Moses, perhaps only the principal ones; for though the list comprises the
sons of Shem, Ham, and Japheth, all their descendants are not enumerated.
Those descendants, with one or two exceptions, are described by names
indicative of tribes and nations and ending in the Hebrew im, or the English "-
ite."
GILL
Verse 1. ow these are the generations of the sons of oah,.... The genealogy of
them, and which is of great use to show the original of the several nations of the
world, from whence they sprung, and by whom they were founded; and to
confute the pretended antiquity of some nations, as the Egyptians, Chaldeans,
Chinese, and others; and to point out the particular people, which were to be the
seat of the church of God for many ages, and from whom the Messiah was to
spring; which seems to be the principal view of the history of Moses, and of this
genealogy, with which should be compared 1 Chronicles 1:1 Shem, Ham, and
Japheth; see Genesis 5:32
and unto them were sons born after the flood; for they had none born to them
either before the flood or in it; they were married before the flood, for their
wives went into the ark with them; but it does not appear they had any children
before, though they then were near an hundred years old; and if they had, they
were not in the ark, and therefore must perish with the rest, which is not likely:
Shem's son Arphaxad was born two years after the flood, Genesis 11:10 when

the rest were born, either his or his brethren's, is not said; however they were all
born after the flood; though some pretend that Canaan was born in the ark {y},
during the flood, for which there is no authority; yea, it is confuted in this
chapter, where Canaan stands among the sons of Ham, born to him after the
flood.
HE RY
This chapter shows more particularly what was said in general (ch. 9:19),
concerning the three sons of oah, that "of them was the whole earth
overspread;" and the fruit of that blessing (ch. 9:1, 7), "replenish the earth." Is
is the only certain account extant of the origin of nations; and yet perhaps there
is no nation but that of the Jews that can be confident from which of these
seventy fountains (for so many there are here) it derives its streams. Through the
want of early records, the mixtures of people, the revolutions of nations, and
distance of time, the knowledge of the lineal descent of the present inhabitants of
the earth is lost; nor were any genealogies preserved but those of the Jews, for
the sake of the Messiah, only in this chapter we have a brief account, I. Of the
posterity of Japheth (v. 2-5). II. The posterity of Ham (v. 6-20), and in this
particular notice is taken of imrod (v. 8-10). III. The posterity of Shem (v. 21,
etc.).
Verses 1-5
Moses begins with Japheth's family, either because he was the eldest, or because
his family lay remotest from Israel and had least concern with them at the time
when Moses wrote, and therefore he mentions that race very briefly, hastening
to give an account of the posterity of Ham, who were Israel's enemies and of
Shem, who were Israel's ancestors; for it is the church that the scripture is
designed to be the history of, and of the nations of the world only as they were
some way or other related to Israel and interested in the affairs of Israel.
Observe, 1. otice is taken that the sons of oah had sons born to them after the
flood, to repair and rebuild the world of mankind which the flood had ruined.
He that had killed now makes alive. 2. The posterity of Japheth were allotted to
the isles of the Gentiles (v. 5), which were solemnly, by lot, after a survey,
divided among them, and probably this island of ours among the rest; all places
beyond the sea from Judea are called isles (Jer. 25:22), and this directs us to
understand that promise (Isa. 42:4), the isles shall wait for his law, of the
conversion of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ.
PULPIT, “It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this ethnological
table. Whether regarded from a geographical, a political, or a theocratical
standpoint, "this unparalleled list, the combined result of reflection and deep
research," is "no less valuable as a historical document than as a lasting proof of
the brilliant capacity of the Hebrew mind." Undoubtedly the earliest effort of
the human intellect to exhibit in a tabulated form the geographical distribution
of the human race, it bears unmistakable witness in its own structure to its high

antiquity, occupying itself least with the Japhetic tribes which were furthest
from the theocratic center, and were latest in attaining to historic eminence, and
enlarging with much greater minuteness of detail on those Hamitic nations, the
Egyptian, Canaanite, and Arabian, which were soonest developed, and with
which the Hebrews came most into contact in the initial stages of their career. It
describes the rise of states, and, consistently with all subsequent historical and
archaeological testimony, gives the prominence to the Egyptian or Arabian
Hamites, as the first founders of empires. It exhibits the separation of the
Shemites from the other sons of oah, and the budding forth of the line of
promise in the family of Arphaxad. While thus useful to the geographer, the
historian, the politician, it is specially serviceable to the theologian, as enabling
him to trace the descent of the woman's seed, and to mark the fulfillments of
Scripture prophecies concerning the nations of the earth. In the interpretation of
the names which are here recorded, it is obviously impossible in every instance
to arrive at certainty, in some cases the names of individuals being mentioned,
while in others it is as conspicuously those of peoples.
Genesis 10:1
ow these are the generations of the sons of oah (cf. Genesis 5:1; Genesis 6:9),
Shem, Ham, and Japheth. ot the order of age, but of theocratic importance
(vide Genesis 5:32). And unto them were sons born (cf. Genesis 9:1, Genesis 9:7,
Genesis 9:19, Genesis 9:22) after the flood. An indication of the puncture
temporis whence the period embraced in the present section takes its departure.
BI 1-32, “Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah
A chapter of genealogies
Many readers might be disposed to undervalue a chapter like this, since it is but a
collection of names—some of which are quite unknown—and is made up of barren
details promising little material for profitable reflection.
Yet a thoughtful reader will be interested here, and discover the germs and suggestions
of great truths; for the subject is man, and man, too, considered in reference to God’s
great purpose in the government of the world. This chapter “is as essential to an
understanding of the Bible, and of history in general, as is Homer’s catalogue, in the
second book of the Iliad, to a true knowledge of the Homeric poems and the Homeric
times.” The Biblical student can no more undervalue the one than the classical student
the other.
I. IT IS MARKED BY THE FEATURES OF A TRUTHFUL RECORD.
1. It is not vague and general, but descends to particulars. The forgers of fictitious
documents seldom run the risk of scattering the names of persons and places freely
over their page. Hence those who write with fraudulent design deal in what is vague
and general.
2. Heathen literature when dealing with the origin of nations employs extravagant
language. The early annals of all nations, except the Jews, run at length into fable, or
else pretend to a most incredible antiquity. National vanity would account for such
devices and for the willingness to receive them. The Jews had the same temptations

to indulge in this kind of vanity as the other nations around them. It is therefore a
remarkable circumstance that they pretend to no fabulous antiquity. We are shut up
to the conclusion that their sacred records grew up under the special care of
Providence, and were preserved from the common infirmities of merely human
authorship.
3. Here we have the ground plan of all history.
II. THAT HISTORY HAS ITS BASIS IN THAT OF INDIVIDUAL MEN. The general
lesson of this chapter is plain, namely, that no man can go to the bottom of history who
does not study the lives of those men who have made that history what it is.
III. THAT MAN IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE OF SCRIPTURE. Infidels have made this
characteristic of revelation a matter of reproach; but all who know how rich God’s
purpose towards mankind is, glory in it, and believe that great things must be in store
for a race which bus occupied so much of the Divine regard.
IV. THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT OF HISTORY TOWARDS AN END. All the
interest centres successively in one people, tribe, and family; then in One who was to
come out of that family, bringing redemption for mankind. “Salvation is of the Jews.”
The noblest idea of history is only realized in the Bible. Those of the world had no living
Word of God to inspire that idea. That book can scarcely be regarded as of human origin
which passes by the great things of the world, and lingers with the man who “believed in
God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” (T. H. Leale.)
Circumstances attendant on man
Instead of saying that man is the creature of circumstances, it would be nearer the mark
to say that man is the architect of circumstances. It is character that builds an existence
out of circumstance. Our strength is measured by our plastic power. From the same
materials one man builds palaces, another hovels; one warehouses, another villas; bricks
and mortar are mortar and bricks until the architect can make them something else.
Thus it is that, in the same family, in the same circumstances, one man rears a stately
edifice, while his brother, vacillating and incompetent, lives forever amid ruins; the
block of granite which was an obstacle in the pathway of the weakly becomes a stepping
stone in the pathway of the strong. (T. Carlyle.)
Oneness of humanity
A clear conception of the import of this marvellous chapter should enlarge and correct
our notions in so far as they have been narrowed and perverted by our insular position.
We should recognize in all the nations of the earth one common human nature. “God
hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth.” This
reflection is both humbling and elevating. It is humbling to think that the cannibal is a
relative of ours; that the slave crouching in an African wood is bone of our bone; and
that the meanest scum of all the earth started from the same foundation as ourselves! On
the other hand, it is elevating to think that all kings and mighty men, all soldiers
renowned in song, all heroes canonized in history, the wise, the strong, the good, are our
elder brothers and immortal friends. If we limit our life to families, clans, and sects, we
shall miss the genius of human history, and all its ennobling influences. Better join the
common lot. Take it just as it is. Our ancestors have been robbers and oppressors,

deliverers and saviours, mean and noble, cowardly and heroic; some hanged, some
crowned, some beggars, some kings; take it so, for the earth is one, and humanity is one,
and there is only one God over all blessed for evermore! If we take this idea aright we
shall get a clear notion of what are called home and foreign missions. What are foreign
missions? Where are they? I do not find the word in the Bible. Where does home end;
where does foreign begin? It is possible for a man to immure himself so completely as
practically to forget that there is anybody beyond his own front gate; we soon grow
narrow, we soon become mean; it is easy for us to return to the dust from whence we
come. It is here that Christianity redeems us; not from sin only, but from all narrowness,
meanness, and littleness of conception; it puts great thoughts into our hearts and bold
words into our mouths, and leads us out from our village prisons to behold and to care
for all nations of mankind. On this ground alone Christianity is the best educator in the
world. It will not allow the soul to be mean. It forces the heart to be noble and hopeful. It
says, “Go and teach all nations”; “Go ye into all the world”; “Look not every man on his
own things, but every man also on the things of others”; “Give and it shall be given unto
you, good measure, pressed down, heaped up, and running over.” It is something for a
nation to have a voice so Divine ever stirring its will and mingling with its counsels. It is
like a sea breeze blowing over a sickly land; like sunlight piercing the fogs of a long dark
night. Truly we have here a standard by which we may judge ourselves. “If any man have
not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” If we have narrow sympathies, mean ideas,
paltry conceptions, we are not scholars in the school of Christ. Let us bring no reproach
upon Christ by our exclusiveness. Let us beware of the bigotry of patriotism, as well as of
the bigotry of religion. We are citizens of the world: we are more than the taxpayers of a
parish. A right view of this procession of the nations will show us something of the
richness and graciousness of Christ’s nature. What a man must he have been either in
madness or in Divinity who supposed that there was something in himself which all
these people needed! (J. Parker, D. D.)
The planting of nations great responsibility
The one point to which I would draw your attention is that which lies upon the very
surface of this history, and to which, as a great law imprinted by God upon our race, I
wish to call your special notice. It is the degree in which the original features of the
founders of a race reproduce themselves in their descendants, so as to become the
distinct and manifest types of national life. This is so plain here that it has rarely escaped
some observation. The few words wherein, according to the wont of patriarchal times,
Noah, as the firstborn priest of his own family, pronounces on his sons his blessing and
his curse, sketch in outline the leading characteristics of all their after progeny. Thus, the
“Blessed be the Lord God of Shem,” can hardly fail to convey to the heater’s mind the
impression that devotion to, and a trust in God, as his portion, marked the character of
the firstborn of Noah. And so it proved in fact, for it was the line of Abraham and the
Semitic race, in the tribes of Israel and Judah, which filled this office of the priests of
mankind for two thousand years. So also with regard to the second son of Noah.
Sensuality and filial irreverence manifestly stained his character. In the future of such a
man lay naturally cruelty—the inseparable companion—and degradation—the unfailing
consequence—of lust. A “servant of servants” should he be. He who disregarded the
duties of a son should lose the place of a brother: he who sacrificed to sensual appetite
every highest duty, should in the end barter for it his own liberty; and his character, too,
has through unnumbered generations reproduced itself in his descendants. Without
entering upon the difficult task of tracing in some of its details the outline of the Hamitic

race, it is clear beyond all contradiction, that through past ages, and even to the present
day, the nations which manifestly sprung from his loins are marked by these
characteristics—lust, cruelty, and servitude. The character of Japhet is perhaps, at first
sight, less plainly to be traced in his father’s benediction. His words would seem,
however, to point to a character marked less strongly than that of his firstborn by piety
towards God, but possessed of those family virtues with which, in the course of things,
an increasing posterity is commonly connected and endued with the practical activity
and vigour, which, as opposed to the more contemplative character of Shem, were
essential to that subduing of the earth, which must accompany its replenishment by the
enlarging seed. Beyond this lay the unexplained and mysterious blessing of his future
dwelling in the tents of Shem, pointing probably, in the personal life of the patriarch, to
the pious rest into which the later years of a virtuous activity would so probably subside.
And all this has plainly marked the Japhetic races: their increase has furnished the
nations of the Gentiles; whilst family virtue, and that practical activity which to this day
has so wonderfully subjected the material earth to its obedience, are the distinction of
their blood. In all these cases, then, we may trace on the broadest scale the action of that
of which I have spoken, as a law impressed upon our common nature, that nations, in
their after generations, bear, repeat and expand the character of their progenitor. And
then, further, we may observe adumbrations of a mode of dealing with men which seems
to imply that in His bestowal of spiritual gifts, God deals with them after some similar
law, Hence, then, we may conclude further, that, by the laws of grace as well as of nature,
there is a reproduction in the after seed of the character of the progenitor. Now, it is to
the application of this principle to our past history and our present duty, that I would
specially invite your notice. And first, FOR THE FACT. Since the opening of the
historical period, there has been scarcely any national planting of the earth through
emigration, until within the last three centuries. Even those events of far distant times,
which most resembled it, were widely different. For they were rather irruptions than
emigration; and the great wave of life which they brought into some new land, first cast
out races in possession, often as numerous as, and commonly more civilized than, their
invaders, and who not unfrequently tinged their subduers with their religion, their
manners, and their language. The direct replenishment of the earth for the last three
hundred years by the Japhetic family, is altogether different. These emigrations have set
forth exclusively from Christian lands. They have been directed to vast tracts of thinly
peopled countries; and they have borne to them men who have been, in the fullest sense
of the words, founders of nations. In this work, we have borne a larger share than any
other people. Now, with what an awful character of responsibility does the truth which
we have before considered invest such acts! A sensual seed will produce a degraded
people; a godless seed will grow into an atheistic empire; nay, even the lesser evils of a
worldly, or a sectarian origin, will mark and renew themselves in successive generations.
How plainly, then, must it be one of the very highest duties of a Christian people to
provide all that is needful to bless and hallow such a national infancy:—to plant a chosen
seed, and not a refuse; to send forth with them that faith, which alone can exalt and
renew the race of man in its purest form, and with every advantage for its reproduction!
How far, then, has England, which has been the chiefest of the nations in this sacred
work, acted up to her responsibilities? Let North America,—let Australasia answer. How
scanty in its measure—how imperfect in its form—how divided in its character—was the
Christianity we mingled with the abundant seed of man which we scattered broadcast
over North America; how fearful a paternity of crime did we assume, when we conceived
and almost executed the enormity of planting the antipodes with every embodiment of
reckless wickedness, and giving it no healing influence of our holy faith! What then must
be herein our guilt and shame! But our chief concern is not with the past: it is with that

present in which the future lies enfolded. Never has the tide of emigration risen so high
as now; never were we so freely planting the earth with our energetic, increasing race as
the seed of future empires; never, then, did the duty of planting it aright press so heavily
upon us: and what is the prime essential for its adequate discharge? Surely, far beyond
all other, that with the seed of fallen man we plant that Church of Christ, through which
God the Holy Ghost is pleased to work for his recovery. This, and no less than this, can
fulfil our obligations. (Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.)
In their nations
The characteristics of a nation
1. It is descended from one head. Others may be occasionally grafted on the original
stock by intermarriage. But there is a vital union subsisting between all the members
and the head, in consequence of which the name of the head is applied to the whole
body of the nation. In the case of Kittim and Dodanim we seem to have the national
name thrown back upon the patriarchs who may have themselves been called Keth
and Dodan. Similar instances occur in the subsequent parts of the genealogy.
2. A nation has a country or “land” which it calls its own. In the necessary migrations
of ancient tribes, the new territories appropriated by the tribe, or any part of it, were
naturally called by the old name, or some name belonging to the old country. This is
well illustrated by the name of Gomer, which seems to reappear in the Cimmerii, the
Cimbri, the Cymry, the Cambri, and the Cumbri.
3. A nation has its own “tongue.” This constitutes at once its unity in itself and its
separation from others. Many of the nations in the table may have spoken cognate
tongues, or even originally the same tongue. Thus the Kenaanite, Phoenician and
Punic nations had the same stock of languages with the Shemites. But it is a uniform
law, that one nation has only one speech within itself.
4. A nation is composed of many “families,” clans, or tribes. These branch off from
the nation in the same manner as it did from the parent stock of the race. (Prof. J. G.
Murphy.)
Ham’s posterity
1. The most cursed man may have a numerous seed: it enlargeth the curse.
2. Cursed ones bring out sometimes an eminent rebellious seed to hasten vengeance
(Gen_10:8).
3. The greatest judgments will not keep wicked ones from sin though being but a
little escaped from them.
4. Under a wise providence, power and violence is suffered to rise and spring in the
earth (Gen_10:8).
5. It is the property of giants in sin and earthly power to hunt to death God’s saints
to His face.
6. God makes in vengeance the names of such wicked ones a proverb (Gen_10:9).
7. The beginning and chief of all the power of wicked ones is but confusion, and the

place of wickedness. Babel and Shinar (Gen_10:10).
8. Wicked potentates are still invading others to enlarge themselves (Gen_10:11).
9. Edifying cities, and places of strength, is the wickeds’ security.
10. Great cities they may have, but such as are under the eye and judgment of God
(Gen_10:12). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Nimrod
Nimrod
Nimrod was not merely a giant or mighty one in hunting, but also a cruel oppressor and
bloody warrior. He is represented by some ancient historians as having renewed the
practice of war, which had for some time been abandoned for agriculture, and hence the
well-known couplet—
“Proud Nimrod first the bloody chase began, A mighty hunter, and his prey was
man.”
Obscurity rests, and ever shall rest, on his particular achievements, although his figure
and name have been found of late in Nineveh. What animals he slew, what weapons he
employed, what battles he fought, with the blood of what enemies he cemented the cities
which he built, how long he lived and where, how and where he died, are not recorded
either in profane history or in the Book of God. Imagination figures him as another
Hercules, clad in the skins of lions, and pursuing his prey with sounding bow and fiery
eye over the vast plains of Asia, and when wild beasts are not to be found, turning his
fury against his neighbours. Such men are the ragged and menacing shadows which the
sun of civilization casts before it; their “strong heart is fit to be the first strong heart of a
people”; their crimes, for which they must answer to God, are yet made useful to God’s
purpose, and from the blood they shed springs up many a glorious harvest of arts and
sciences, of culture and progress. Without questioning their guilt or the evil they do, or
seeking to solve the mystery why they exist at all, we see many important ends which
their permission answers; and acknowledge that the page of history were comparatively
tame, did it want the red letters which record the names of a Nimrod, a Nebuchadnezzar,
a Charlemagne, a Henry the Eighth, a Rienzi, and a Napoleon. (G. Gilfillan.)
Gospel archery
My text sets forth Nimrod as a hero when it presents him with broad shoulders and
shaggy apparel and sun-browned face, and arm bunched with muscle—“a mighty hunter
before the Lord.” I think he used the bow and the arrows with great success practising
archery. I have thought if it is such a grand thing and such a brave thing to clear wild
beasts out of a country, if it is not a better and braver thing to hunt down and destroy
those great evils of society that are stalking the land with fierce eye and bloody paw, and
sharp tusk and quick spring. I have wondered if there is not such a thing as Gospel
archery, by which these who have been flying from the truth may be captured for God
and heaven. The archers of olden times studied their art. They were very precise in the
matter. The old books gave special directions as to how an archer should go, and as to
what an archer should do. But how clumsy we are about religious work. How little skill
and care we exercise. How often our arrows miss the mark.

1. In the first place, if you want to be effectual in doing good, you must be very sure
of your weapon. There was something very fascinating about the archery of olden
times. Perhaps you do not know what they could do with the bow and arrow. Why,
the chief battles fought by the English Plantagenets were with the long-bow. They
would take the arrow of polished wood, and feather it with the plume of a bird, and
then it would fly from the bowstring of plaited silk. The broad fields of Agincourt,
and Solway Moss, and Neville’s Cross heard the loud thrum of the archer’s
bowstring. Now, my Christian friends, we have a mightier weapon than that. It is the
arrow of the Gospel; it is a sharp arrow; it is a straight arrow; it is feathered from the
wing of the dove of God’s Spirit; it flies from a bow made out of the wood of the
cross. Paul knew how to bring the notch of that arrow on to that bowstring, and its
whirr was heard through the Corinthian theatres, and through the courtroom, until
the knees of Felix knocked together. It was that arrow that stuck in Luther’s heart
when he cried out: “Oh, my sins! Oh, my sins!” In the armoury of the Earl of
Pembroke, there are old corslets which show that the arrow of the English used to go
through the breastplate, through the body of the warrior, and out through the
backplate. What a symbol of that Gospel which is sharper than a two-edged sword,
piercing to the dividing asunder of soul and body, and of the joints and marrow!
Would to God we had more faith in that Gospel!
2. Again, if you want to be skilful in spiritual archery, you must hunt in unfrequented
and secluded places. The good game is hidden and secluded. Every hunter knows
that. So, many of the souls that will be of most worth for Christ and of most value to
the Church are secluded. They do not come in your way. You will have to go where
they are.
3. I remark, further, if you want to succeed in spiritual archery, you must have
courage. If the hunter stand with trembling hand or shoulder that flinches with fear,
instead of his taking the catamount, the catamount takes him. What would become
of the Greenlander if, when out hunting for the bear, he should stand shivering with
terror on an iceberg? What would have become of Du Chaillu and Livingstone in the
African thicket, with a faint heart and a weak knee? When a panther comes within
twenty paces of you, and it has its eye on you, and it has squatted for the fearful
spring, “Steady there.” Courage, O ye spiritual archers! There are great monsters of
iniquity prowling all around about the community. Shall we not in the strength of
God go forth and combat them? We not only need more heart, but more backbone.
What is the Church of God that it should fear to look in the eye any transgression?
4. I remark again, if you want to be successful in spiritual archery, you need not only
to bring down the game, but bring it in. I think one of the most beautiful pictures of
Thorwaldsen is his “Autumn.” It represents a sportsman coming home and standing
under a grapevine. He has a staff over his shoulder, and on the other end of that staff
are hung a rabbit and a brace of birds. Every hunter brings home the game. No one
would think of bringing down a reindeer or whipping up a stream for trout, and
letting them lie in the woods. At eventide the camp is adorned with the treasures of
the forest—beak, and fin, and antler. If you go out to hunt for immortal souls, not
only bring them down under the arrow of the Gospel, but bring them into the Church
of God, the grand home and encampment we have pitched this side the skies. Fetch
them in; do not let them lie out in the open field. They need our prayers and
sympathies and help. That is the meaning of the Church of God—help. O ye hunters
for the Lord! not only bring down the game, but bring it in. (Dr. Talmage.)

Lessons
1. The last mention of the Church’s line is not the least in God’s account.
2. Fruitfulness is given to the Church of God, for its continuance on earth.
3. Visible distinction hath God made between the lines of the world and of the
Church.
4. Heber’s children are the true Church of God.
5. The name and blessing of Shem is on that Church.
6. Sharers in the promise are especially brethren.
7. The first in birth may be last in grace (Gen_10:21).
8. Out of the same holy stock may arise enemies to the Church as well as the right
seed (Gen_10:22). (G. Hughes, B. D.)
Lessons
1. Syrians may arise from the Father of the Church according to the flesh, very
enemies to it.
2. God’s mind is to keep the line of His Church distinct; from all who turn aside
(Gen_10:23).
3. The line of the Church is but short in respect of the world (Gen_10:24).
4. Memorable as well as terrible is that division of people and tongues which God
hath made (Gen_10:25).
5. Saints have been careful to keep in memory such judgments of division; the
naming of the child (Gen_10:25).
6. Numerous is the seed departed from the Church (Gen_10:26; Gen_10:29).
7. God has given a dwelling place to degenerate seed (Gen_10:30).
8. The Church hath its family, tongue, place, and people, distinct from all (verse 37).
(G. Hughes, B. D.).
2
The sons[1] of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai,

Javan, Tubal, Meshech and Tiras.
CLARKE Eusebius and others state (from what authority we know not) that
oah was commanded of God to make a will and bequeath the whole of the
earth to his three sons and their descendants in the following manner:-To Shem,
all the East; to Ham, all Africa; to Japheth, the Continent of Europe with its
isles, and the northern parts of Asia.
Verse 2. The sons of Japheth
Japheth is supposed to be the same with the Japetus of the Greeks, from whom,
in an extremely remote antiquity, that people were supposed to have derived
their origin.
Gomer
Supposed by some to have peopled Galatia; so Josephus, who says that the
Galatians were anciently named Gomerites. From him the Cimmerians or
Cimbrians are supposed to have derived their origin. Bochart has no doubt that
the Phrygians sprang from this person, and some of our principal commentators
are of the same opinion.
Magog
Supposed by many to be the father of the Scythians and Tartars, or Tatars, as
the word should be written; and in great Tartary many names are still found
which bear such a striking resemblance to the Gog and Magog of the Scriptures,
as to leave little doubt of their identity.
Madai
Generally supposed to be the progenitor of the Medes; but Joseph Mede makes it
probable that he was rather the founder of a people in Macedonia called Maedi,
and that Macedonia was formerly called Emathia, a name formed from Ei, an
island, and Madai, because he and his descendants inhabited the maritime coast
on the borders of the Ionian Sea. On this subject nothing certain can be
advanced.
Javan

It is almost universally agreed that from him sprang the Ionians, of Asia Minor;
but this name seems to have been anciently given to the Macedonians, Achaians,
and Baeotians.
Tubal
Some think be was the father of the Iberians, and that a part at least of Spain
was peopled by him and his descendants; and that Meshech, who is generally in
Scripture joined with him, was the founder of the Cappadocians, from whom
proceeded the Muscovites.
Tiras.
From this person, according to general consent, the Thracians derived their
origin.
GILL
Verse 2. The sons of Japheth,.... Who though mentioned last, the genealogy
begins with him, by a figure which rhetoricians call a "chiasm." The posterity of
Japheth are those whom Hesiod {z} often calls iapetionidhv, "Iapetionides," and
him iapetov, "Iapetus." According to Josephus {a}, the sons of Japheth
inhabited the earth, beginning from the mountains Taurus and Amanus, and
then went on in Asia unto the river Tanais, and in Europe unto Gadira. Seven of
his sons are mentioned, and the first is Gomer; from whom, according to the
same writer {b}, came the Gomareans or Gomerites, in his time called by the
Greeks Galatians, that is, the Gauls of Asia minor, who inhabited Phrygia; both
Gomer and Phrygia signifying the same, as Bochart {c} observes, and the
country looking as if it was torrified or burnt; and Pliny {d} makes mention of a
town in Phrygia, called Cimmeris; and the Cimmerians and Cimbri are derived
by some from this Gomer, whom Herodotus {e} makes mention of as in Asia and
Scythia, and speaks of a country called Cimmerius, and of the Cimmerian
Bosphorus; and these seem to be the Gauls before mentioned, under a different
name; and it is to be observed, that the Welsh, who sprung from the Gauls, call
themselves to this day Cumero, or Cymro and Cumeri. It is plain from Ezekiel
38:6 that Gomer and his people lay to the north of Judea, and the posterity of
Japheth went first into the northern parts of Asia, and then spread themselves
into Europe: six more of his sons follow, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and
Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras; the first of these, Magog, was the father of a
northern people which bore his name, see Ezekiel 38:2 and according to
Josephus {f}, who is generally followed, are the same that were called Scythians;
from Madai came the Medes, often spoken of in Scripture, along with the
Persians; so Josephus {g} says, from him came the nation of Madaeans, whom
the Greeks call Medes; and very frequently in Scripture the Medes go by the
name of Madai, their original ancestor; see Daniel 5:28 but Mr. Mede {h} is of
opinion, that Macedonia was the seat of this Madai, which was formerly called

Aemathia; that is, as he gives the etymology of it, aia, "Madai," the country of
Madai; but the former sense is generally received. Javan is by all agreed to be
the father of the Grecians; hence Alexander, king of Grecia, is in Daniel 8:21
called king of Javan; and one part of Greece bore the name of Ionia; and the sea
that washed it is called the Ionian sea. And his posterity are iaonev, "Iaonians,"
in Homer {i} and Aristophanes {k}; and the scholiast of the latter says, that the
Barbarians call all Greeks Iaonians. The next son of Japheth is Tubal or Thobel,
as Josephus calls him, who says {l} the Thobelians in his time were called
Iberians, a people in Asia, that dwelt near the Euxine sea; and in Albania was a
place called Thabilaca, as may be seen in Ptolemy {m}, and another called
Thilbis, from whom might spring the Iberians in Europe, now called Spaniards;
but Bochart {n} thinks that the Tibarenes are the descendants of Tubal, a people
that dwelt between the Trapezuntii and Armenia the less; and he wonders that
this never was thought of by any; but in that he is mistaken, for our countryman
Mr. Broughton {o} makes the Tibarenes to spring from Tubal; and Epiphanius
{p} many hundreds of years before him. Meshech, his next son, is mentioned
along with Tubal in Ezekiel 27:13 from him came the Mosocheni, as Josephus
{q}, who in his time were called Cappadocians, with whom there was a city then
named Mazaca, since Caesarea {r}; and these seem to be the same that Pliny {s}
calls Moscheni, who inhabited the mountains Moschici, which were at the north
east of Cappadocia. Some derive the Muscovites from them, which is not
improbable: the last of Japheth's sons is Tiras or Thiras, which Jarchi interprets
very wrongly by Paras, or Persia; much better the Targums of Jonathan and
Jerusalem, and so a Jewish chronologer {t}, by Thracia; for the descendants of
Thiras, as Josephus {u} observes, the Greeks call Thracians; and in Thrace was
a river called Atyras {w}, which has in it a trace of this man's name; and
Odrysus, whom the Thracians worshipped, is the same with Tiras, which god
sometimes goes by the name of Thuras; and is one of the names of Mars, the god
of the Thracians.
WESLEY, "Verse 2. Moses begins with Japhet's family, either because he was the
eldest, or because that lay remotest from Israel, and had least concern with them, at that
time when Moses wrote; and therefore he mentions that race very briefly; hastening to
give account of the posterity of Ham, who were Israel's enemies, and of Shem, who were
Israel's ancestors: for it is the church that the scripture designed to be the history of, and
of the nations of the world only as they were some way or other interested in the affairs of
Israel.
BE SO , "Genesis 10:2. Moses begins with Japheth’s family, either because he was
the eldest, or because it lay most remote from Israel, and had least concern with
them at the time when he wrote; and therefore he mentions that race very briefly;
hastening to give account of the posterity of Ham, who were Israel’s enemies, and of
Shem, who were Israel’s ancestors: for it is the church of which the Scripture is
designed to be the history: and of the nations of the world, only as they were some
way or other interested in the affairs of Israel.

ELLICOTT, "(2) The sons of Japheth.—Of these, seven main divisions are
enumerated, some of which are subsequently sub-divided; they are—
1. Gomer, whose name reappears in the Cimmerians. Their original settlement was
between Magog and Madai, that is, between the Scythians and the Medes. After
remaining some time on the Caspian and Black Seas, on which latter they have left
their name in the Crimea, a powerful branch of them struck across the centre of
Russia, and, skirting the Baltic, became the Cimbri of Denmark (whence the name
of the Chersonesus Cimbrica, given to Jutland), the Cymry of Wales, &c. Generally
they are the race to which the | name is given of Celts.
2. Magog. The Scythians, who once possessed the country north and south of the
Caucasus. The Russians are their modern representatives, being descended from the
Sarmatians, a Scythic race, with a small admixture of Median blood.
3. Madai. The Medes, who dwelt to the south and south-west of the Caspian. Mada,
in the Accadian language, means land, and it was in the Median territory that
Kharsak-Kurra, “the mountain of the East,” was situated, on which the Accadians
believed the ark to have rested, whence possibly Media took its name, being “the
land” above all others (Chald. Gen., p. 196).
4. Javan, that is, Ionia, the land of the Greeks.
5. Tubal. The Tibareni, on the south-east of the Black Sea.
6. Meshech. The Moschi, a people of Colchis and Armenia.
7. Tiras. According to Josephus and the Targum, the Thracians. Other races have
been suggested, but this is probably right; and as the Getae, the ancestors of the
Goths, were Thracians, this would make the Scandinavian race the modern
representatives of Tiras.
In this enumeration the race of Japheth is described as occupying Asia Minor,
Armenia, the countries to the west as far as the Caspian Sea, and thence northward
to the shores of the Black Sea. Subsequently it spread along the northern shores of
the Mediterranean and. over all Europe. But though unnoticed by the writer its
extension was equally remarkable towards the east. Parthia, Bactria, the Punjab,
India, are equally Japhethite with Germany, Greece, and Rome; and in Sanscrit
literature the Aryan first showed that genius, which, omitting the greatest of all
books, the Semitic Bible, has made this race the foremost writers in the world.
WHEDO , "2. Gomer — The word occurs elsewhere in the Scriptures only in
Ezekiel 38:6, where it is, as here, associated with Togarmah. The name is
undoubtedly preserved in the Homeric name κιµµεριοι, the Gimiri in the cuneiform
inscriptions of Darius Hystaspes, Cimmerians, Kymri or Kymbri, the original Kelts,
(Celts,) and Gauls, who were found in possession of all northern and western

Europe at the dawn of western civilization. This race settled first on the north of the
Black Sea, where they have left traces of their name, as Crimea, Crim-Tartary;
driven thence by the Scythians before the time of Herodotus, (Her., 4, 11,) they
moved west and south-west to the sea. Traces of the original Celtic language are still
preserved in Ireland, the Isle of Man, Wales, and the Scotch Highlands.
The Galatians of Asia Minor, the Celtic people to whom Paul wrote his famous
epistle, were called Gomerites by Josephus. The Celts call themselves Kymr, and by
orthoepic changes between the liquids L, M, R, as well as the palatals K and G,
changes such as are constantly taking place in spoken languages, the names Gomer,
Kymr, Gaul, Kelt, Galatae, Kimmeri, Crimea, Cambria, Cumberland, all come from
the same root. Linguistic affinities show that these people, the earliest inhabitants of
Europe of whom we definitely know, were Asiatic in origin, for the Keltic is an
Indo-European language.
Magog — The name probably means “the place,” (or region,) of Gog, and appears
in Ezekiel 38:2; Ezekiel 39:6, as the name of a people dwelling “in the sides of the
north,” over whom Gog is king, identified by Josephus, Jerome, and most moderns
with the Scythians, who in the time of Herodotus had their home north of the range
of Caucasus, in what is now Russia. Furst interprets Magog as Great Mount, that is,
Caucasus. The region between the Black and Caspian Seas was called Magog by the
Arabians. They came into Europe after the Kelts, a fierce, formidable, nomadic
race, who poured down upon Asia Minor and Egypt in the seventh century B.C.
(Herod., 4.)
Madai — This word is nowhere else in the Bible rendered as the name of a person,
but, whenever it occurs, it is translated Media, or the Medes, (see 2 Kings 17:6;
Esther 1:3; Esther 1:18-19,) a powerful nation who once dwelt south and south-west
of the Caspian, east of Armenia and Assyria. The Medes are here represented in
close affinity with the Kelts (Gomer) and the Greeks, (Javan,) confirming Schlegel’s
theory, now deemed established by linguistic researches, that the principal
European and East Indian nations are of the same Aryan stock, having in a
prehistoric period migrated westward and eastward from the high land of Ivan.
This theory is embodied in the word Indo-European.
Javan — ‫,יון‬ Yavan, translated Greece in Zechariah 9:13 ; Daniel 8:21, etc.; and its
plural is rendered Grecians in Joel 4:6. Ionia, the name of a western province of
Asia Minor, colonized at an early period by the Greeks, and applied by the
Orientals to the Greeks in general. The Rosetta Stone shows that the Egyptians
called the Greeks by the same name. The word occurs with the same meaning in
Sanskrit and old Persian, showing that the name existed before the rise of the
Aryan, Hamitic, and Shemitic families of speech. (Knobel.) The famous Greco-
Italian races, which did not arise till many centuries after the composition of this
narrative, inhabiting Macedonia, Thessaly, the Greek and Italian peninsulas, and
west Asia Minor, are foreshadowed in this name.
Tubal, and Meschech — These peoples are constantly associated together by

Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 27:13; Ezekiel 32:26; Ezekiel 38:1-2, etc.,) and by Herodotus,
(Herod., 3:94, 7:78.) They are likewise, according to Rawlinson, associated in the
Assyrian inscriptions. Josephus identifies Tubal with the Iberians, who once dwelt
between the Caspian and Euxine Seas. Knobel considers the Tibareni to have been
only a branch of the widespread Iberians, some of whom settled in the east, some in
the west. The Moschi were the ancestors of the Muscovites, builders of Moskwa, or
Moscow, and still give Russia its name throughout the East. Ezekiel says that they
came down from the “sides of the north,” and traded in copper and slaves in the
markets of Tyre. Ezekiel 27:13.
Tiras — Thracians, who dwelt between Mt. Haemus and the AEgean, on the south-
west shore of the Black Sea. They are associated with Meshech (Meshnash) on the
old Egyptian monuments. (Rawlinson.)
LA GE, “1. Genesis 10:2-5.—The Japhethites.—Gomer.—The Cimbri, as well as
the Cumry or Cymry in Wales, and in Bretagne, are to be regarded as in relation
with the Cimmerians; They represent the north-western portion of the Japhethan
territory.—Magog appears to represent the whole northeast, as the Scythians, in the
most general way, denote the cycle of the northeastern nations. “The Sarmatians,
for the most part, lie to the west. The chief people in the army of Gog, Ezekiel 38:2-
3; Ezekiel 39:1, is ‫ֹאשׁ‬ ‫,ר‬ that is the Rossi, or Russians.” Knobel.—Madai; the Medes,
who inhabit the south and Southwest.—Javan, belonging to the south, the Græco-
Italian family of nations.—Thubal and Meshech as well as Thogarma, inhabiting
the middle tracts: Iberians, or Georgians, Armenians, Pontus, the districts of Asia
Minor generally.—Gomer’s Sons: Ashkenaz is referred to the Germans, by others to
Asia Minor, the Asiones. Ashkenaz is explained by Knobel as denoting the race of
Asen. The oldest son of the Germanic Mannus was called Iskus, equivalent to Ask,
Ascanios.—Riphat is referred by Knobel to the Celts, by Josephus to the
Paphlagonians; in which there is no contradiction, since the Celts also (the Gauls)
had a home in Asia (Galatia).—Thogarma.—The Armenians to this day call
themselves the House of Thorgom or Thorkomatsi.—Sons of Javan: Elisa is referred
to Elis and to the Æolians, Tarshish to Tartessus, and also to the Etruscans, whom,
nevertheless, Delitzsch holds to have been Shemites; Kittim is referred to the
Cyprians and the Carians; Dodanim to the Dardanians.
PULPIT, “Genesis 10:2
The sons of Japheth are first mentioned not because Japheth was the eldest of the
three brothers, although that was true, but because of the greater distance of the
Japhetic tribes from the theocratic center, the Hamites having always been much
more nearly situated to and closely connected with the Shemites than they. The
immediate descendants of Japheth, whose name, ἰ αì πετος, occurs again in the
mythology of a Japhetic race, were fourteen m number, seven sons and seven
grandsons, each of which became the progenitor of one of the primitive nations.
Gomer. A people inhabiting "the sides of the north" (Ezekiel 38:6); the Galatae of
the Greeks (Josephus, 'Ant.,' 1.6); the Chomarii, a nation in Bactriana on the Oxus
(Shulthess, Kalisch); but more generally the Cimmerians of Homer ('Odyss.,' 11.13-

19), whose abodes were the shores of the Caspian and Euxine, whence they seem to
have spread themselves over Europe as far west as the Atlantic, leaving traces of
their presence in the Cimhri of orth Germany and the Cymri in Wales (Keil,
Lange, Murphy, Wordsworth, 'Speaker's Commentary ). And Magog. A fierce and
warlike people presided over by Gog (an appellative name, like the titles Pharaoh
and Caesar, and corresponding with the Turkish Chak, the Tartarian Kak, and the
Mongolian Gog: Kalisch), whose complete destruction was predicted by Ezekiel
(Ezekiel 38:1-23; Ezekiel 39:1-29.); generally understood to be the Scythians, whose
territory lay upon the borders of the sea of Asoph, and in the Caucasus. In the
Apocalypse (Genesis 20:8-10) Cog and Magog appear as two distinct nations
combined against the Church of God. And Madai. The inhabitants of Media (Mada
in the cuneiform inscriptions), so called because believed to be situated περιÌ µεσην
τηÌ ν ασιì αν (Polyb. 5.44) on the south-west shore of the Caspian And Javan.
Identical with ἰ αì ων (Greek), Javana (Sanscrit), Juna (Old Persian), Jounan
(Rosetta Stone); allowed to be the father of the Greeks, who in Scripture are styled
Javan (vide Isaiah 66:19; Ezekiel 27:13; Daniel 8:21; Daniel 10:20; Joel 3:6). And
Tubal, and Meshech. Generally associated in Scripture as tributaries of Magog
(Ezekiel 38:2, Ezekiel 38:3; Ezekiel 39:1); recognized as the Iberians and Moschi in
the north of Armenia, between the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates, and the
Black Sea (Josephus, Knobel, Lange, Kalisch). And Tiras. The ancestor of the
Thraciaus (Josephus), of the Tyrrheni, a branch of the Pelasgians (Tuch), of the
Asiatic tribes round the Taurus (Kalisch), in support of which last is a circumstance
mentioned by Rawlinson, that on the old Egyptian monuments Mashuash and
Tuirash, and upon the Assyrian Tubal and Misek, stand together as here. Tiras
occurs nowhere else in Scripture.
3
The sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath and
Togarmah.

CLARKE
Verse 3. Ashkenaz
Probably gave his name to Sacagena, a very excellent province of Armenia. Pliny
mentions a people called Ascanitici, who dwelt about the Tanais and the Palus
Maeotis; and some suppose that from Ashkenaz the Euxine Sea derived its name,
but others suppose that from him the Germans derived their origin.
Riphath
Or Diphath, the founder of the Paphlagonians, which were anciently called
Riphataei.
Togarmah.
The Sauromates, or inhabitants of Turcomania. See the reasons in Calmet.
GILL
Verse 3. And the sons of Gomer,.... Who was the first of the sons of Japheth,
three of whose sons are mentioned, and they are as follow:
Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah; the first of these seated himself in the
lesser Asia, in Pontus and Bithynia, where were some traces of his name in the
river Ascanius, and in the Ascanian lake or bay; and also in the lesser Phrygia or
Troas, where was a city called Ascania, and where were the Ascanian isles {x},
and the Euxine Pontus, or Axeine {y}, as it was first called, which is the sea that
separates Asia and Europe, and is no other than a corruption of the sea of
Ashkenaz. It seems to have been near Armenia, by its being mentioned along
with Minni or Armenia, in Jeremiah 51:27. Germany is by the Jews commonly
called Ashkenaz; perhaps some of the posterity of Ashkenaz in Asia might pass
into Europe, and Germany might be a colony of them; so Mr. Broughton {z}
observes of the sons of Gomer, that they first took their seat in Asia, and then
came north and west into Muscovy and Germany. The next son of Gomer was
Riphath. Josephus {a} says, that the Riphathaeans which came from him are the
Paphlagonians, a people of Asia Minor, near Pontus, so that he settled near his
brother Ashkenaz; perhaps his posterity are the Arimphaei of Pliny {b}, and the
Riphaeans of Mela {c}, who inhabited near the Riphaean mountains, which
might have their name from this son of Gomer, who in 1 Chronicles 1:6 is called
Diphath, the letters r and d being very similar. His third son is called Togarmah,
who had his seat in the north of Judea, see Ezekiel 38:6 his posterity are the
Phrygians, according to Josephus {d}; but some place them in Galatia and
Cappadocia; and Strabo {e} makes mention of a people called Trocmi, on the
borders of Pontus and Cappadocia; and Cicero {f} of the Trogmi or Trogini,

who may have their name from hence; for the Greek interpreters always call
him Torgama or Thorgana. The Jews make the Turks to be the posterity of
Togarmah. Elias Levita says {g}, there are some that say that Togarmah is the
land of Turkey; and Benjamin of Tudela {h} calls a Turkish sultan king of the
Togarmans, that is, the Turks; and among the ten families of Togarmah, which
Josephus ben Gorion {i} speaks of, the Turks are one; and perhaps this notion
may not be amiss, since the company of Togarmah is mentioned with Gog, or the
Turk, See Gill on "Eze 38:6." The Armenians pretend to be the descendants of
Togarmah, who, with them, is the son of Tiras, the son of Gomer, by his son
Haik, from whom they and their country, from all antiquity, have bore the name
of Haik {k}.
And the sons of Gomer; Ash-kenaz. Axenus, the ancient name of the Euxine, is
supposed to favor Phrygia and Bithynia as the locality possessed by Askenaz
(Bochart); Iskus; equivalent to Ask, Ascanios, the oldest son of the Germanic
Mannus, to point out Germany as his abode (Jewish commentators); but
Jeremiah 51:27 seems to indicate the region between the Euxine and the
Caspian. Kalisch, following Josephus, identifies the name with the ancient town
Rhagae, one day's journey to the south of the Caspian. Murphy and Poole, on
the authority of Diodorus Siculus, believe the Germans may have been a colony
of the Ashkenians. And Riphath. Diphath (1 Chronicles 1:6)—the Paphlagonians
(Josephus); more generally the tribes about the Riphaean mountains, on the
north of the Caspian (Knobel, Kalisch, Clericus, Rosenmüller, Murphy, '
Speaker's Commentary'); but both are uncertain (Keil). And Togarmah.
Mentioned again in Ezekiel 27:14; Ezekiel 38:6; the Phrygians (Josephus), the
Cappadocians (Bochart), the Armenians (Michaelis, Gesenius, Rosenmüller), the
Taurians, inhabiting the Crimea (Kalisch). The tradition preserved by Moses
Chorensis, that the ancestor of the Armenians was the son of Thorgom, the son
of Comer, is commonly regarded as deciding the question.
ELLICOTT, "(3) Gomer has three main divisions:—
1. Ashkenaz, a region in the neighbourhood of Armenia (Jeremiah 51:27),
whence, following the course of Japhethite migration, the race seems to have
wandered into Germany. The derivations are all most uncertain; but the Jews
call the Germans Ashkenazites, and are probably right.
2. Riphath, in 1 Chronicles 1:6, is called Diphath (see Dodanim, below). Riphath
is probably right, and the, inhabitants of the Riphæan Mountains (the
Carpathians?) are the people meant. They were Celts.

3. Togarmah. Certainly Armenia.
WHEDO , "3. Sons of Gomer — Sub-families of the Gomeridae, or
Cimmerians, Kimbri.
Ashkenaz — Or Askenaz. Kenaz means family, family of the Asi, who lived in
the north-west of Asia Minor, and from whom Asia derives its name. (Knobel.)
By metathesis the name becomes Aksenaz, possibly the old name of the Black
Sea, which the Greeks called αξενος, Euxine. (Lewis.) The Greek name is usually
understood, however, to mean inhospitable.
Riphath — The portion of the Kelts who, according to Plutarch, crossed the
Rhipoen (Carpathian) mountains, and poured over northern Europe, seem to
have preserved this name.
Togarmah — The Armenians, who, according to their own historians, had
Thorgon for their founder, and call themselves the house (family) of Thorgon.
(Furst, Knobel.) They originally dwelt in Armenia and Asia Minor, but poured
across the Hellespont into Europe before the dawn of history, and, according to
Sallust, (Jugurtha, 18,) spread over the Mediterranean peninsulas even to Spain.
They are mentioned by Ezekiel (chap. 27:14) as trading at the Tyrian markets in
horses, horsemen, and mules, which they brought down from the Armenian
highlands to the sea.
4
The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish, the
Kittim and the Rodanim.[2]

CLARKE
Verse 4. Elishah
As Javan peopled a considerable part of Greece, it is in that region that we must
seek for the settlements of his descendants; Elishah probably was the first who
settled at Elis, in Peloponnesus.
Tarshish
He first inhabited Cilicia, whose capital anciently was the city of Tarsus, where
the Apostle Paul was born.
Kittim
We have already seen that this name was rather the name of a people than of an
individual: some think by Kittim Cyprus is meant: others, the isle of Chios; and
others, the Romans; and others, the Macedonians.
Dodanim.
Or Rodanim, for the and may be easily mistaken for each other, because of their
great similarity. Some suppose that this family settled at Dodona in Epirus;
others at the isle of Rhodes; others, at the Rhone, in France, the ancient name of
which was Rhodanus, from the Scripture Rodanim.
GILL
Verse 4. And the sons of Javan,.... Another son of Japheth; four sons of Javan
are mentioned, which gave names to countries, and are as follow:
Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim; the first of these, Elishah, gave
name to the Elysaeans, now called Aeoles, as Josephus {l} says; hence the
country Aeolia, and the Aeolic dialect, all from this name; and there are many
traces of it in the several parts of Greece. Hellas, a large country in it, has its
name from him; so the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem interpret Elishah by
Allas. Elis in Peloponnesus, Eleusis in Attica, the river Elissus, or Ilissus, and the
Elysian fields, are so called from him. Tarshish, second son of Javan, gave name
to Tarsus, by which Cilicia was formerly called, as Josephus says {m}, of which
the city named Tarsus was the metropolis, the birth place of the Apostle Paul,
Acts 22:3. Hence the Mediterranean sea is called Tarshish, because the Cicilians
were masters of it; and Tartessus in Spain might be a colony from them, as
Broughton observes; and so Eusebius says, from the Tarsinns are the Iberians,

or Spaniards; and which Bochart {n} approves of, and confirms by various
evidences; and Hillerus, {o} makes Tarshish to be the author of the Celtae, that
is, of the Spanish, French, and German nations. The third son of Javan is Kittim,
whom Josephus {p} places in the island of Cyprus, a city there being called
Citium, from whence was Zeno the Citian: but rather the people that sprung
from him are those whom Homer {q} calls Cetii; and are placed by Strabo {r} to
the west of Cilicia, in the western parts of which are two provinces, mentioned
by Ptolemy {s}, the one called Cetis, the other Citis: likewise this Kittim seems to
be the father both of the Macedonians and the Latines; for Alexander the great
is said to come from Cittim, and Perseus king of Macedon is called king of
Cittim,
"And it happened, after that Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who
came out of the land of Chettiim, had smitten Darius king of the Persians and
Medes, that he reigned in his stead, the first over Greece," (1 Maccabees 1:1)
"Beside this, how they had discomfited in battle Philip, and Perseus, king of the
Citims, with others that lifted up themselves against them, and had overcome
them:" (1 Maccabees 8:5)
and Macedonia is sometimes called Macetia, as it is in Gellius {t}, which has
something of the name of Cittim or Cetim in it; and also the Latines or Romans
seem to spring from hence, who may be thought to be meant by Cittim in
umbers 24:24, Daniel 11:30 and Eusebius says the Citians are a people from
whom came the Sabines, who also are Romans; and in Latium was a city called
Cetia, as says Halicarnassensis {u}; and Bochart {w} has shown, that Latium and
Cethem signify the same, and both have their names from words that signify to
hide; "latium a latendo," and "celhem," from Mtk, "to hide," see Jeremiah 2:22
in which sense the word is frequently used in the Arabic language; and Cittim in
the Jerusalem Targum is here called Italy. The last son of Javan mentioned is
Dodanim; he is omitted by Josephus: his country is by the Targum of Jonathan
called Dordania; and by the Jerusalem Targum Dodonia; and he and his
posterity are placed by Mr. Mede in part of Peloponnessus and Epirus, in which
was the city of Dodona, where were the famous temple and oracle of Jupiter
Dodonaeus, under which name this man was worshipped. In 1 Chronicles 1:7 he
is called Rodanim, and in the Samaritan version here; and the word is by the
Septuagint translated Rodians; which have led some to think of the island of
Rhodes as the seat, and the inhabitants of it as the posterity of this man; but
Bochart {x} is of opinion, that they settled in the country now called France, gave
the name to the river Rhodanus, and called the adjacent country Rhodanusia,
and where formerly was a city of that name, much about the same tract where
now stands Marseilles; but this seems too remote for a son of Javan.

And the sons of Javan; Elizhah. The isles of Elishah are praised by Ezekiel
(Ezekiel 27:7) for their blue and purple; supposed to have been Elis in the
Peloponnesus, famous for its purple dyes (Bochart); AEolis (Josephus, Knobel);
Hellas (Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Kalisch); without doubt a maritime people of
Grecian stock ('Speaker's Commentary'). And Tarshish. Tarsus in Cilicia
(Josephus); but rather Tartessus in Spain (Eusehius, Michaelis, Bochart,
Kalisch). Biblical notices represent Tarshish as a wealthy and flourishing
seaport town towards the west (vide 1 Kings 10:22; Psalms 48:7; Psalms 72:10;
Isaiah 60:9; Isaiah 66:19; Jeremiah 10:9; Ezekiel 27:12). Kittim. Chittim
( umbers 24:24); Citium in Cyprus (Josephus), though latterly the name
appears to have been extended to Citium in Macedonia (Alexander the Great is
called the king of Chittim, 1 Macc. 1:1; 8:5), and the colonies which settled on
the shores of Italy and Greece (Bochart, Keil, Kalisch). Isaiah 23:1, Isaiah 23:12;
Daniel 11:30 describe it as a maritime people. And Dodanim. Dordona in Epirus
(Michaelis, Rosenmüller); the Dardaniaus, or Trojan's (Gesenius); the Daunians
of South Italy (Kalisch); the Rhodani in Gaul, reading as in 1 Chronicles 1:7
(Bochart). Josephus omits the name, and Scripture does not again mention it.
ELLICOTT, "(4) Javan has four main divisions:—
1. Elishah, a maritime people of Greece. Traces of the name occur in Aeolis and
in Elis, a district of the Peloponessus. Some boldly identify with Hellas. The isles
of Elishah are mentioned in Ezekiel 27:7.
2. Tarshish. At so early a period this could scarcely be Tartessus, but is more
probably the Tyrseni, or Tyrrheni, a race once powerful in Italy, Corsica,
Sardinia, and finally in Spain. Probably Tartessus, at the mouth of the
Guadalquiver, in Spain, was founded by them, and took from them its name. At
this time they; were apparently a small tribe of the Javanites; but while Elishah
followed the sea-coast and colonised Greece, Tarshish took a course so far inland
to the north of the Danube that it did not reach the sea until it had come to the
northern districts of Italy.
3. Kittim. A plural, like Madai. The Kittim were a maritime race, who colonised
Cyprus, the chief city of which was Kitium, and probably other islands and
coast-districts of the Mediterranean. There was a Kitium also in Macedonia; and
Alexander is called King of the Kittim in 1 Maccabees 1:1.
4. Dodanim. Another plural. The right reading is probably Rodanim, as in many
MSS. in 1 Chronicles 1:7 and in the LXX., and the Samaritan here. R and D are

so constantly interchanged in proper names. owing to the similarity of their
shape, that no dependence can be placed upon the reading. The Rodanim would
be the Rhodians.
WHEDO , "4. Sons of Javan — Rather, Yavan, the Ionian families.
Elishah — The AEolians, (Elis,) who occupied three fourths of Greece, and
spread to the coasts and isles of Asia Minor. (Josephus, Knobel.)
Tarshish — A famous commercial people well known to the sacred and classic
writers, (Isaiah, Ezekiel, Strabo, Herodotus,) whence the Greek Tartessus and
Tartessis, a town and region in southern Spain at the mouth of the
Guadalquivir. According to Herodotus, Tartessus was settled by a colony of
Phocaean Greeks, (i, 163,) the word signifying in Phenician, younger brother,
(Rawl.,) a very suitable name for a colony. Their ships were so celebrated for
size and fleetness as to give the name “ships of Tarshish” to all large merchant
vessels wherever sailing. The ships of Tarshish (Ezekiel 27:12, etc.) brought gold
and silver, iron, tin, and lead to Tyre, and these are precisely the articles which
the classic writers, Strabo, etc., make the staple products of Spain. Knobel and
Furst understand the word to refer to that Pelasgic-Hellenic race called
Etruscans, Tuscans, Tyrsenians, who before the Roman dominion peopled Italy
and the Sicilies, and thus carried the name to Spain. (Knobel, p. 86.) Hence,
perhaps, Tarsus in Cilicia. (Josephus.)
Kittim — Cyprians, who still preserve the name in the term Kitti. Josephus says
(Ant. 1:6) that the Helvens transferred the name Kittim to all the Mediterranean
isles and coasts. The Cyprian Kittim is shown by its monuments to have been a
Phenician colony, or at least to have had Phenician or Hamitic settlers. But there
were also Hamitic Chittim, (Hittites, sons of Heth or Cheth,) see Genesis 10:15, a
widespread people in the age of Solomon; and the Japhetic Kittim seem to have
mingled at Cyprus with the Hamitic Chittim. (Knobel.)
Dodanim — Dardanians, Trojans, or perhaps it should be Rodanim,
(interchange of ‫ד‬ and ‫,ר‬ in the first syllable,) as it is given in 1 Chronicles 1:7,
and in some copies by the Septuagint and Samaritan. The Rodani, or Rhodians.

5
(From these the maritime peoples spread out
into their territories by their clans within their
nations, each with its own language.)
CLARKE
Verse 5. Isles of the Gentiles
EUROPE, of which this is allowed to be a general epithet. Calmet supposes that
it comprehends all those countries to which the Hebrews were obliged to go by
sea, such as Spain, Gaul, Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor.
Every one after his tongue
This refers to the time posterior to the confusion of tongues and dispersion from
Babel.
JFB
5. the isles of the Gentiles--a phrase by which the Hebrews described all
countries which were accessible by sea (Isa 11:11; 20:6; Jer 25:22). Such in
relation to them were the countries of Europe, the peninsula of Lesser Asia, and
the region lying on the east of the Euxine. Accordingly, it was in these quarters
the early descendants of Japheth had their settlements.
GILL
Verse 5. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands,.... That is,
by those sons of Japheth before mentioned; and by "isles" are meant, not
countries surrounded with water, for the isles in this sense would not have been
sufficient for the posterity of Japheth; nor can it be thought they would leave the
continent, where there was room enough for them, and go into islands; and
besides must have found it difficult to get there, when shipping and navigation
were little known: but it is usual with the Hebrews, of whom Moses, the writer of
this history, was, to call all places beyond the Mediterranean sea, or whatsoever

they went to by sea, or that were upon the sea coasts, islands, as Greece, Italy,
&c. Moreover, the word sometimes signifies countries, as it does in Job 22:30
and so should be rendered here, as it is by some {y}, "the countries of the
Gentiles"; so called, because in the times of Moses, and at the writing of this
history, those countries were inhabited by Heathens and idolaters, strangers to
the true religion: and this division was not made at random, and at the pleasure
of a rude company of men, but in an orderly regular manner, with the consent,
and by the advice and direction of the principal men of those times; and
especially it was directed by the wise providence of the most High, who divided
to the nations their inheritance, and set the bounds of the people, Deuteronomy
32:8.
everyone after his tongue, after their families, in their nations; this shows, that
what is said concerning the division of countries to the sons of Japheth is by way
of anticipation; and that, though thus related, was not done till after the
confusion of languages, since the partition was made according to the different
languages of men; those that were of the same language went and dwelt together,
the several nations of them, and the several families in those nations; by which it
appears that this was done by consultation, with great care and wisdom, ranging
the people according to their tongues; of which nations were formed, and with
them were taken the several families they consisted of.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles. Sea-washed coasts as well as islands
proper (cf. Isaiah 42:4 with Matthew 12:21). Isaiah (Genesis 20:6) styles Canaan
an isle (cf. Peloponnesus). The expression signifies maritime countries. Divided
in their lands; every one after his tongue. Indicating a time posterior to the
building of Babel (Genesis 11:1). After their families ἐ ν ταῖ ς φυλαῖ ς αὐ τῶ ν
(LXX.); in their tribes or clans, a lesser subdivision than the next. In their
nations. The division here exhibited is fourfold:
The first defines the territory occupied, and the second the language spoken by
the Japhethites; the third their immediate descent, and the rough the national
group to which they severally belonged.
WESLEY, "Verse 5. The posterity of Japheth were allotted to the isles of the Gentiles,
which were solemnly, by lot, after a survey, divided among them, and probably this island
of ours among the rest. All places beyond the sea, from Judea, are called isles, Jer. xxv,
22, and this directs us to understand that promise, Isaiah xlii, 4, the isles shall wait for his
law, of the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith of Christ.

COKE, "Genesis 10:5. By these were the isles, &c.— By isles here we are not to
understand merely countries encompassed round by the sea; for the Hebrews use the word
to signify all those countries divided from them by the sea. Isaiah 11:11; Isaiah 40:15.
Jeremiah 2:10. Ezekiel 27:3. Besides, the word we translate isle, signifies a region,
country, or province. Job 22:30. Isaiah 20:6. These descendants of Japheth, says Le Clerc,
peopled by degrees, with their colonies, Europe and the adjacent islands, besides a large
part of Asia; and being widely dispersed through the largest regions, so corrupted their
original language, as neither to understand one another, nor to remember their common
origin.
WHEDON, "5. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided — Rather, from these
[Japhethites] have the [dwellers on the] islands of the [Gentile] nations divided
themselves in their lands. “Islands,” in the Old Testament, means the isles, coasts, and
peninsulas of the Mediterranean. The writer knew only of the “enlargement” of Japheth
over the Mediterranean coasts and isles, but modern linguistic and monumental research
shows that these ancient Hebrew names outline those vast pre-historic migrations of the
Japhetic race from the great plateau of Iran eastward into Asia, westward and north-
westward into Asia Minor and Europe, the traces of which may be found to-day from the
Indian peninsulas to the Atlantic, and from the Mediterranean to the frozen ocean.
After his tongue… their families… nations — The peoples called Turanian (a linguistic,
rather than an ethnic, name) were on the ground at the dawn of tradition itself, and their
origin is yet obscure; successive families of the Indo-European (Aryan) race swept
eastward and westward, wave after wave, each to a great degree obliterating the traces of
its predecessor, yet, as Rawlinson expresses it, leaving detached fragments of the
superseded race in holes and corners, as the Turanian Laps and Fins are left in their
remote peninsulas — as the Keltic Welsh and Scotch are left in their highlands,
mountains, and islands — scattered patches of peoples who once thinly covered the
continent.
6
The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim,[3] Put and
Canaan.

CLARKE
1) Verse 6. Cush
2) Who peopled the Arabic nome near the Red Sea in Lower Egypt. Some think
the Ethiopians descended from him.
3)
4) Mizraim
5) This family certainly peopled Egypt; and both in the East and in the West,
Egypt is called Mezr and Mezraim.
6)
7) Phut
8) Who first peopled an Egyptian nome or district, bordering on Libya.
9)
10) Canaan.
11) He who first peopled the land so called, known also by the name of the
Promised Land.
JFB
6. sons of Ham--emigrated southward, and their settlements were: Cush in
Arabia, Canaan in the country known by his name, and Mizraim in Egypt,
Upper and Lower. It is generally thought that his father accompanied him and
personally superintended the formation of the settlement, whence Egypt was
called "the land of Ham" [Ps 105:23, 27; 106:22].
GILL
Verse 6. And the sons of Ham,.... ext to the sons of Japheth, the sons of Ham
are reckoned; these, Josephus {z} says, possessed the land from Syria, and the
mountains of Amanus and Lebanon; laying hold on whatever was towards the
sea, claiming to themselves the countries unto the ocean, whose names, some of
them, are entirely lost, and others so greatly changed and deflected into other
tongues, that they can scarcely be known, and few whose names are preserved
entire; and the same observation will hold good of others. Four of the sons of
Ham are mentioned,
Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan; the first of these, Cush, Josephus
{a} says, has suffered no loss by time; for the Ethiopians, whose prince he was,
are to this day by themselves, and all in Asia, called Chusaeans: but though this

word Cush, as used in Scripture, is generally rendered by us Ethiopia, this must
not be understood of Ethiopia in Africa, but in Arabia; and indeed is always to
be understood of one part of Arabia, and which was near to the land of Judea;
so Moses's wife is called an Ethiopian, when she was an Arabian, or of Midian,
umbers 12:1 and Chusan and Midian are mentioned together, Habakkuk 3:7
see 2 Kings 19:9 2Ch 14:9 and Bochart {b} has shown, by various arguments,
that the land of Cush was Arabia; and so the Targum of Jonathan interprets it
here Arabia. There was a city called Cutha in Erac, a province in the country of
Babylon {c}, where imrod the son of Cush settled, which probably was called
so from his father's name. Here the eastern writers say {d} Abraham was born,
and is the same place mentioned in 2 Kings 17:24. The second son of Ham was
Mizraim, the same with the Misor of Sanchoniatho {e}, and the Menes of
Herodotus {f}, the first king of Egypt, and the builder of the city of Memphis in
Egypt, called by the Turks to this day Mitzir {g}. Mitzraim is a name by which
Egypt is frequently called in Scripture, and this man was the father of the
Egyptians; and because Egypt was inhabited by a son of Ham, it is sometimes
called the land of Ham, Psalm 105:23. The word is of the dual number, and
serves to express Egypt by, which was divided into two parts, lower and upper
Egypt. Josephus says {h}, we call Egypt, Mestres, and all the Egyptians that
inhabit it, Mestraeans; so the country is called by Cedrenus {i}, Mestre; and
Kairo, a principal city in it, is to this day by the Arabians called Al-messer, as
Dr. Shaw {k} relates. The third son of Ham is Phut; of whom Josephus {l} says,
that he founded Libya, calling the inhabitants of it after his name, Phuteans; and
observes, that there is a river in the country of the Moors of his name; and that
many of the Greek historians, who make mention of this river, also make
mention of a country adjacent to it, called Phute: mention is made of this river as
in Mauritania, both by Pliny {m} and Ptolemy {n} and by the latter of a city
called Putea: this Phut is the Apollo Pythius of the Heathens, as some think. The
last son of Ham is Canaan, the father of the Canaanites, a people well known in
Scripture. Concerning these sons of Ham, there is a famous fragment of
Eupolemus preserved in Eusebius {o}; and is this;
"the Babylonians say, that the first was Belus, called Cronus or Saturn (that is,
oah), and of him was begotten another Belus and Chanaan (it should be read
Cham), and he (i.e. Ham) begat Chanaan, the father of the Phoenicians; and of
him another son, Chus, was begotten, whom the Greeks call Asbolos, the father
of the Ethiopians, and the brother of Mestraim, the father of the Egyptians."
HE RY
Verses 6-14
That which is observable and improvable in these verses is the account here
given of imrod, v. 8-10. He is here represented as a great man in his day: He
began to be a mighty one in the earth, that is, whereas those that went before

him were content to stand upon the same level with their neighbours, and
though every man bore rule in his own house yet no man pretended any further,
imrod's aspiring mind could not rest here; he was resolved to tower above his
neighbours, not only to be eminent among them, but to lord it over them. The
same spirit that actuated the giants before the flood (who became mighty men,
and men of renown, ch. 6:4), now revived in him, so soon was that tremendous
judgment which the pride and tyranny of those mighty men brought upon the
world forgotten. ote, There are some in whom ambition and affectation of
dominion seem to be bred in the bone; such there have been and will be,
notwithstanding the wrath of God often revealed from heaven against them.
othing on this side hell will humble and break the proud spirits of some men, in
this like Lucifer, Isa. 14:14, 15. ow,
I. imrod was a great hunter; with this he began, and for this became famous to
a proverb. Every great hunter is, in remembrance of him, called a imrod. 1.
Some think he did good with his hunting, served his country by ridding it of the
wild beasts which infested it, and so insinuated himself into the affections of his
neighbours, and got to be their prince. Those that exercise authority either are,
or at least would be called, benefactors, Lu. 22:25. 2. Others think that under
pretence of hunting he gathered men under his command, in pursuit of another
game he had to play, which was to make himself master of the country and to
bring them into subjection. He was a mighty hunter, that is, he was a violent
invader of his neighbours' rights and properties, and a persecutor of innocent
men, carrying all before him, and endeavouring to make all his own by force and
violence. He thought himself a mighty prince, but before the Lord (that is, in
God's account) he was but a mighty hunter. ote, Great conquerors are but
great hunters. Alexander and Caesar would not make such a figure in scripture-
history as they do in common history; the former is represented in prophecy but
as a he-goat pushing, Dan. 8:5. imrod was a mighty hunter against the Lord, so
the Septuagint; that is, (1.) He set up idolatry, as Jeroboam did, for the
confirming of his usurped dominion. That he might set up a new government, he
set up a new religion upon the ruin of the primitive constitution of both. Babel
was the mother of harlots. Or, (2.) He carried on his oppression and violence in
defiance of God himself, daring Heaven with his impieties, as if he and his
huntsmen could out-brave the Almighty, and were a match for the Lord of hosts
and all his armies. As if it were a small thing to weary men, he thinks to weary
my God also, Isa. 7:13.
II. imrod was a great ruler: The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, v. 10.
Some way or other, by arts or arms, he got into power, either being chosen to it
or forcing his way to it; and so laid the foundations of a monarchy, which was
afterwards a head of gold, and the terror of the mighty, and bade fair to be
universal. It does not appear that he had any right to rule by birth; but either his
fitness for government recommended him, as some think, to an election, or by
power and policy he advanced gradually, and perhaps insensibly, into the

throne. See the antiquity of civil government, and particularly that form of it
which lodges the sovereignty in a single person. If imrod and his neighbours
began, other nations soon learned to incorporate under one head for their
common safety and welfare, which, however it began, proved so great a blessing
to the world that things were reckoned to go ill indeed when there was no king in
Israel.
III. imrod was a great builder. Probably he was architect in the building of
Babel, and there he began his kingdom; but, when his project to rule all the sons
of oah was baffled by the confusion of tongues, out of that land he went forth
into Assyria (so the margin reads it, v. 11) and built ineveh, etc., that, having
built these cities, he might command them and rule over them. Observe, in
imrod, the nature of ambition. 1. It is boundless. Much would have more, and
still cries, Give, give. 2. It is restless. imrod, when he had four cities under his
command, could not be content till he had four more. 3. It is expensive. imrod
will rather be at the charge of rearing cities than not have the honour of ruling
them. The spirit of building is the common effect of a spirit of pride. 4. It is
daring, and will stick at nothing. imrod's name signifies rebellion, which (if
indeed he did abuse his power to the oppression of his neighbours) teaches us
that tyrants to men are rebels to God, and their rebellion is as the sin of
witchcraft.
ELLICOTT, "(6) Ham.—Many derive this word from a Hebrew root, and
explain it as signifying hot, sunburnt, and so swarthy. Japheth they connect with
a word signifying to be fair; and so Ham is the progenitor of dark races, Japheth
of those of a fair complexion, while the olive- coloured spring from Shem. More
probably it is Chemi, the old name of Egypt, “the land of Ham” (Psalms 78:51),
called by Plutarch Chemia, and was taken from the black colour of the soil.
The Hamites are grouped in four principal divisions:—
1. Cush. Aethiopia, but not that of Africa, but of Asia. The home of the Cushites
was on the Tigris and Euphrates, where imrod raised them to great power.
Thence they spread into the southern peninsula of Arabia, and crossing the Red
Sea at a later date, colonised ubia and Abyssinia. In the Bible Cush is watered
by the Gihon (Genesis 2:13); and Zipporah, the wife of Moses, and daughter of a
priest of Midian, is in umbers 12:1 called a Cushite. Their high rank in old
time is marked by the place held by them in the Iliad of Homer.
2. Mizraim. Egypt. In form the word is a dual, and may point to the division of
the country into Upper and Lower Egypt. If we choose to interpret a Hamite
word by a Hebrew root, it may signify the narrowed land, but it is safer to leave
these words till increased knowledge shall enable us to decide with some security

upon their meaning. For the ancient name of Mizraim see Genesis 10:6, and for
its extent see Genesis 10:14. From the study of the skulls and bodies of a large
number of mummies Brugsch-Bey in his recent history has come to the
conclusion that the ancient Egyptians did not belong to any African race, but to
the great Caucasian family, “but not of the Pelasgic or Semitic branches, but of a
third, Cushite.” He adds that the cradle of the Egyptian nation must be sought in
Central Asia.
3. Phut. The Lybians of orth Africa.
4. Canaan. See ote on Genesis 10:15-19.
WHEDO , "6. Ham — Or rather Cham, is from a root signifying to be hot, and
hence burnt, black. The Hamites are dark-skinned peoples, dwelling mainly in
the torrid zone. Ham is used frequently in Scripture for Egypt and the
Egyptians, an Hamitic country and people. It, or its Egyptian equivalent, was
also the common name for that land and people among the Egyptians
themselves. It is written with two letters in the hieroglyphic language, K M, and
occurs in the form Ch M E more than ten times on the Rosetta Stone.
The Hamites are presented here, 1) as Cushite Ethiopians, Assyrians,
Babylonians; 2) Egyptians; 3) Lybyans; 4) and Canaanites.
Cush — Ethiopia in the Sept. and Vulg., and so often rendered in our version.
Isaiah 43:3; Isaiah 45:14, etc. Monumental and linguistic research has now
established the long-disputed theory that there was an Asiatic as well as an
African Cush. Lepsius finds the name in Egypt on monuments of the sixth
dynasty, and Rawlinson proves an ethnic connexion between the Ethiopians and
the primitive Babylonians. The later Babylonians were Shemitic in origin, but
Knobel shows (Volk., p. 246) that the Cushites primarily peopled Babylonia and
spread eastward to India. Thus has it been shown by the research of our own
day that the Asiatic kingdoms of ineveh and Babylon are Hamitic in origin.
The African and the Asiatic Cush freely communicated with each other through
Meroe, on the upper ile, and the Red Sea, by caravans and ships.
Mizraim — This is the Hebrew name for Egypt and the Egyptians. It is
primarily a geographical word, in the dual number, well rendered by Lewis the
arrows, a designation singularly descriptive of Egypt, which is a narrow strip
of verdure threaded by the ile, hundreds of miles in length and only a dozen or
so in breadth, stretching from Ethiopia to the Mediterranean, and separating the
deserts of Africa and Asia. The name was naturally imposed by the first Hamite
settlers, and afterwards transferred from the country to its inhabitants.

Phut — Lybyans, in the wide sense of the word inhabitants of the orth African
coast west of Egypt. Ptolemy and Pliny mention a river Phtuth, ( φθουθ,) in
north-western Africa. The Egyptian designation of Lybya is Phet, from Pet,
Coptic Phit, a bow, by which symbol it is represented in the hieroglyphics.
(Knobel, p. 296.) Jeremiah (xlvi, 9) associates Phut (Lybyans) with Cush,
(Ethiopians,) as rising up against Pharaoh-necho; and ahum ( ahum 3:9)
makes Phut an ally with ineveh in connexion with Ethiopia and Egypt.
Canaan — Rather, Kenaan, from a root signifying to be low.
Hengstenberg supposes that Ham thus named his son in a tyrannical spirit, to
denote the obedience which he exacted from him, though so irreverent himself,
while God’s secret providence had a national humiliation in view in permitting
the child to receive this name. Comp. Genesis 9:25, and the note. Some
understand Kenaan as geographical, signifying Lowland, but this is not in
harmony with oah’s prophecy in Genesis 9:25, etc. Herodian states that the
ancient name of Phenicia (Palm-land) was χνα, or Kenaan.
LA GE, “ Genesis 10:6-20.—The Hamites. The three first sons of Ham settled in
orthern Africa1. The Æthiopians of the upper ile; 2. the Egyptians of the
lower ile; 3. the Libyans, west of the Egyptians, in the east of orthern Africa.
The Cushites appear to have removed from the high northeast (Cossæ), passing
over India, Babylonia, and Arabia, in their course towards the south; for “in
these lands the ancients recognized a dark-colored people, who were designated
by them as Æthiopians, and who have since, in part, perished, whilst a few have
kept their place to this day.” Knobel.—Mizraim.—The name denotes narrowing,
enclosing; its dual form denotes the double Egypt (upper and lower Egypt);
Αἴγυπτος is probably from Kah-ptah, land of Ptah. The old Egyptian name is
Kemi, Chemi, (with reference to Ham).—Canaan.—Between the Mediterranean
Sea and the western shore of Jordan.—The name Pœni (Puni), allied to φόνος,
blood, and φοινος, blood-red, denotes the Phœnicians in their original Hamitic
color.—Sons of Cush. Seba.—Meroë, which, at one time, according to Josephus,
was called Seba.—Chavila.—In the Septuagint, Εὐϊλα. The Macrobians (or long
living), Æthiopians of the modern Abyssinia.—Sabta.—Sabbata, a capital city in
Southern Arabia. “To this day there is in Yemen and Hadramaut a dark race of
men who are distinct from the light-colored Arabians. So it is also in Oman on
the Persian Gulf.” Knobel.—Raamah.—Septuagint: ‘Ρεγµα, in Southeastern
Arabia—Oman. There, too, there are obscure indications of Raamah’s sons
Sheba and Dedan.—Sabtecha.—Dark-colored men on the east side of the
Persian Gulf, in Caramania.—Aside from these, imrod is also made prominent
as a son of Cush, Genesis 10:8-12. Knobel regards this section as a Jehovistic
interpolation, and so does Delitzsch. The name Jehovah, however, as occurring
here, is no proof of such a fact; it comes naturally out of the accompanying

thoughts. The only thing remarkable Isaiah, that imrod is not named in
immediate connection with the other sons of Cush, but that the two sons of
Raamah go before him. It Isaiah, however, easy enough to be understood, that
the narrator wished first to dispose of this lesser reference.[F 9] Interruptions
similar to it are of repeated occurrence in the table, as is the case also in other
genealogies ( 1 Chronicles 2:7; 1 Chronicles 23:4; 1 Chronicles 23:22).—He was
a mighty hunter.—“The author presents imrod as the son of Cush, putting him
far back before the time of Abraham, and assigns him to the Æthiopian race. In
fact, the classical writers recognize Æthiopians in Babylonia in the earliest times.
They speak, especially, of an Æthiopian king, Cepheus, who belongs to the
mythical time, and there is mention of a trace of the Cephenians as existing to
the north of Babylon.” Knobel. In the expression, “he began to be a hero, or a
mighty one upon the earth,” there is no occasion for calling him a “postdiluvian
Lamech” (Delitzsch). He began the unfolding of an extraordinary power of will
and deed, in the fact mentioned, that he became a mighty hunter in the presence
of Jehovah. The hunting of ravenous beasts was in the early time a beneficent act
for the human race. Powerful huntsmen appear as the pioneers of civilization; a
fact which clearly proclaims itself in the myth of Hercules. And so the
expression, “ imrod was a mighty hunter before Jehovah,” may mean, that he
was one who broke the way for the future institutions of worship and culture
which Jehovah intended in the midst of a wild and uncultivated nature. There is
another interpretation: he was so mighty a hunter, that even by Jehovah, to
whom, in other respects, nothing is distinguished, he was recognized as such
(Knobel; Delitzsch); but this seems to us to have little or no meaning. Keil holds
fast to the traditional interpretation: in defiance of Jehovah, and, at the same
time, takes the literal sense of animal-hunting in connection with the tropical
sense of hunting men, so that he explains it, with Herder, as meaning an
ensnarer of men by fraud and force. either the expression itself, nor the
proverb: “like imrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord,” justifies this view. By
such a proverb, there may be denoted a praiseworthy, Herculean pioneer of
culture, as well as a blameworthy and violent despot. In truth, the chase of the
animals was, for imrod, a preparatory exercise for the subjugation of men.
“For him and his companions, the chase was a training for war, as we are told
by Xenophon (Kunegete, C. i.), the old heroes were pupils of Chiron, and Song
of Solomon, µαθηταὶ κυνηγεσίων, disciples of the chase.” Delitzsch.—And the
beginning of his kingdom was Babel.—Knobel: “His first kingdom in contrast
with his second.” This, however, is not necessarily involved in the expression,
“the beginning.” It denotes rather the basis. In thus playing the hero, imrod
established, in the first place, a kingdom that embraced Babel, that Isaiah,
Babylon, Erech, or Orech, in the southwest of Babylonia, Akkad (in respect to
situation ’Ακκήτη), in a northern direction, and in the ortheast, Calneh, in
respect to territory corresponding to Chalonitis, or Ktisiphon, on the east shore
of the Tigris. This establishment of an empire transforming the patriarchal clan-
governments into one monarchy is not to be thought of as happening without
force. The hunter becomes a subjugator of men, in other words, a conqueror.—
Out of that land went forth Asshur. [Lange translates: Out of that land went he
forth towards Asshur.]—The Septuagint, Vulgate, and many interpreters

(Luther, Calvin) regard Asshur as the grammatical subject, and give it the sense:
Asshur went forth from Shinar. On the contrary, the Targum of Onkelos,
Targum of Jonathan, and many other authorities, (Baumgarten, Delitzsch,
Knobel) have rightly recognized imrod as the subject. Still, it does not seem
clear, when Knobel supposes that imrod had left his first kingdom for the sake
of founding a second. Moreover, it is not to be supposed that he barely extended
his rule over an uninhabited territory for the purpose of colonizing it. It was
rather characteristic of imrod, that he should seek still more strongly to
appropriate to himself the occupied district of Assyria by the establishment of
cities. The first city was ineveh (at this day the ruin-district called imrud),
above the place where the Lycus flows into the Tigris; the second was Rehoboth,
probably east of ineveh; the third Calah, northward in the district of
Kalachan, in which there is found the place of ruins called Khorsabad; the
fourth was Resen, between ineveh and Calah.—The same is a great city.—The
first suggested sense would seem to denote Resen as the great city, or as the
greater city in relation to the others named with it. On the contrary, remarks
Knobel: Resen is nowhere else mentioned as known to antiquity, and could not
possibly have been so distinguished, as to be called in this short way the great
city. Rather does the expression denote the four cities taken together, as making
ineveh in the wider sense, and which, both by Hebrews and Assyrians, was
thus briefly called the great city.” According to Ktesias, it had a circumference
of four hundred and eighty stadia (twenty-four leagues), with which there well
agrees the three days’ journey of Jonah 3:3; it embraced the quarter founded by
imrod, out of which it grew in the times that followed imrod, when the
Assyrian kings gradually combined the four places into one whole; thus the
whole city was named ineveh after its most southern part. The ancient
assertions respecting the circuit of the city are confirmed by the excavations.
“These four cities correspond, probably, to the extensive ruins on the east of the
Tigris, that have lately been made known by Layard and Botta, namely, ebi-
Junus and Kujundschik, opposite Mosul, Khorsabad, five leagues north, and
imrud, eight leagues north of Mosul.” Keil. See also the note (p112) on the
agreement of Rawlinson, Grote, iebuhr, and others, as opposed by the
conjectures of Hitzig and Bunsen.—The sons of Mizraim: 1. Ludim. As
distinguished from the Shemitic Ludim, Genesis 10:22; Movers regards it as the
old Berber race of Levatah that settled by the Syrtis,—so called after the manner
of other collective names of the Mauritanian races. According to Knobel it was
the Shemitic Ludim, who, after the Egyptian invasion, were called Hyksos. This
is in the face of the text2. Anamim. This is referred by Knobel to the Egyptian
Delta3. Lehabim. Ægyptian Libyans, not to be confounded with ‫,פּוּט‬ the Libyans
proper4. aphtuhim. According to Knobel, the people of Phthah, the god of
Memphis, in Middle Egypt; according to Bochart, it agrees with Νέφθυς, that
connects with the northern coast-line of Egypt5. Pathrusim. Inhabitants of
Pathros, Meridian land, equivalent to Upper Egypt, or Thebais6. Casluhim. The
Colchians, “who, according to Herod, ii. c105, had their descent from the
Egyptians.” This may probably be held of one branch of Mizraim; whereas the
origin of the Cushites themselves would seem to point back to Colchis (see
Genesis 2.).—Out of whom came Philistim.—The name is explained as meaning

emigrants, from the Æthiopian word fallasa. According to Amos 9:7; Jeremiah
47:4, the Philistines went forth from Caphtor. We may reconcile both these
declarations, by supposing that the beginning of the settlement of the Philistines
on the coast-line of Canaan, had been a Casluhian colony, but that this was
afterwards strengthened by an immigration from Caphtor, and then their
territory enlarged by the dispossession of the Avim, Deuteronomy 2:23.—And
Caphtorim.—By old Jewish interpreters these are described as Cappadocians;
they are regarded by Ewald as Cretans. Both suppositions may agree in denoting
the course of migration taken by the Caphtorim.—The sons of Canaan:—
“ otwithstanding the Shemitic language, the Phœnician Canaanites are here
reckoned among the Hamitic nations, and must, therefore, have had their origin
from the South. In fact, ancient writers affirm that they came from the
Erythræan Sea, that Isaiah, from the Persian Gulf, to the Mediterranean. And
with this agrees the mythology which makes the Phœnician ancestors, Agenor
and Phœnix, akin, partly to Belus in Babylonia, and partly with Egyptus
(Danaus the Æthiopian).” Knobel1. Zidon. Although originally the name of a
person, this does not exclude its relation to the famous city so called, ‫,צוד‬
primarily, to lay nets; it appears, however, to denote fishing as well as hunting
proper. Sidon was the oldest city of the Phœnicians2. Heth. This also stands as
the name of a person, whereas the designations of the Canaanites that follow
have the form of national appellations. In this position of Heth, together with
Sidon the first-born, they would appear to be denoted as the peculiar point of
departure of the Canaanitish life. The Hittites (Hethites) on the hill-land of
Judah, and especially in the neighborhood of Hebron, were only a branch of the
great original Hittite family ( 1 Kings 10:29; 2 Kings 7:6). The Kittim also, and
the Tyrians, are, according to Knobel, comprehended in this name3. The
Jebusites. Distinguished as the inhabitants of the old Jebus, Jerusalem4. The
Amorites. On the hill-land of Judah, and on the other side of Jordan, the
mightiest family of the Canaanites; therefore may their name embrace all
Canaanites (chs. Genesis 15:16; Genesis 48:22) 5. The Girgasites. ( Genesis
15:21; Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 24:11); their relation to the Gergesenes (
Matthew 8:28) is very uncertain6. Hivites (or Hevites) in Sichem ( Genesis 34:2),
at Gibeon ( Joshua 9:7), and at the foot of Hermon ( Joshua 11:3). “The five last
sons of Canaan dwelt northward in Phœnicia.” Knobel. The Arkites. Denoted
from the city Arka, north of Sidon. The Sinites, named from the city Sina,
mentioned by Hieronymus, still farther north. More northern still the Zemarites,
named from the city Simyra (Sùmrah, by the moderns). Farthest north the
Arvadites (also on the island Aradus); on the northeast, the Hamathites, name
from the city Hamath, still existing.—And afterwards were spread abroad.—
This spreading extends from the Phœnician district along the coast. The Kenites,
mentioned Genesis 15:19-21, the Kenezites, and the Kadmonites, are regarded
by Delitzsch as people of Hamitic descent. So also the Rephaim, besides whom
there are still farther named the Perezites. The same thing may probably be said
of the Geshurim, mentioned 1 Samuel 27:8. The Susim and Emim, Genesis 14, he
(Delitzsch) holds to be not Canaanites, but a people of a later introduction
(p300). An immigration of Shemites must, in truth, have preceded that of the
Hamites into Canaan.—The sons of Shem ( Genesis 10:21-31). The father

(ancestor) of all the children of Eber.—This declaration calls attention
beforehand to the fact, that in the sons of Eber the Shemitic line of the
descendants of Abraham separates again in Peleg, namely, from Joktan or his
Arabian descendants1. Elam. Elamites, the most easterly Shemites who dwelt
from the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea; at a later day they are lost, together
with their language, in the Persians2. Asshur. Assyrians to the east of the Tigris,
from thence extending towards Syria and Asia Minor. Their mother-country
was a plain; hence the name (from ‫ר‬ַ‫שׁ‬ָ‫.)א‬ Their Shemitic language also
underwent a change, and became foreign to the Hebrew3. Arphaxad. Their
dwelling-place was in Arrapachitis, on the east side of the Tigris, from which
they spread out; by Ewald and Knobel it is interpreted as referring to the
Chaldæans, which Keil, however, regards as uncertain4. Lud. The Lydians of
Asia Minor, related to the Assyrians (see Keil, p114; by Knobel they are referred
to the Canaanite and Arabian races). 5. Aram. Aramæans, in Syria and
Mesopotamia.—The sons of Aram: Uz and Gether, probably Arabians; Hul and
Mash, probably Syrians.—The sons of Arphaxad:—The names Salah and Eber
(sending forth and passing over) denote the already commencing emigration of
the Abrahamic race. The two sons of Eber are called Peleg (division) and Joktan
(diminished, small). With them there is a division of the Abrahamic and the
Arabian lines. Peleg is the ancestor of the first. This is the explanation: in this
manner was it that “in his day the earth was divided.” Fabri interprets this
expression of a catastrophe that took place in the body of the earth, whose form
was then violently divided into the later continental relations (in his treatise on
the “Origin of Heathenism,” 1859). Delitzsch interprets it as referring, in
general, to the division of the earlier population; Keil explains it of the division
that took place in consequence of the building of the tower of Babel.[F 10]
Knobel refers the language of the separa of the two brothers, Peleg and Joktan,
in which Joktan and his sons took their way to the south. We find here indicated
the germ of the facts by which the earth, that Isaiah, the population of the earth,
became divided into Judaism and Heathenism. For the separation of Abraham is
no immediate or sudden event. The interrupted emigration of Terah had been
previously prepared in Salah and Eber; fully so in Peleg. Therefore is Peleg’s
son called ‫עוּ‬ ְ‫,ר‬ friend of God. In contrast with Salah (the sent), Eber (the passing
over), and Peleg (the separating, division), Serug denotes again the complicated
or entangled, ahor, the panting, possibly the ineffectual striving, and, finally,
Terah, the loitering, the one who tarries on the way. Then comes Abram, the
high father, with whom the race of the promise decidedly begins. We have no
hesitation in taking these names as at the same time historical and symbolical.—
The sons of Joktan: In their multiplicity they present a remarkably clear figure
of the Arabian tribes. “Thirteen names, some of which can still be pointed out in
places and districts of Arabia, whilst others have not, as yet, been discovered, or
have been wholly extinguished.” Knobel. Concerning their strife, and perhaps,
too, their merging in the Hamites, who were in Arabia before them, compare
Knobel, p123—The beni Kahtan, sons of Joktan, or Joktanidæ, form their
leading point of view in orthern Yeman1. Almodad. The name El Mohdad is
found among the princes of the Djorhomites, first in Yemen, and then in
Hedjez2. Sheleph, the same as Salif, the Salapenians in a district of Yemen3.

Hazarmaveth, the same as Hadramaut (court of death), in Southeastern Arabia,
by the Indian Ocean; so named because of the unhealthy climate4. Jereh. Sons of
the moon, worshippers of the moon; south from Chaulan5. Hadoram. The
Adramites, on the south coast of Arabia6. Uzal. One with Sanaa, a city of
Yemen7. Diklah, meaning the palm; probably cultivator of the palm-tree; they
may be placed conjecturally in the Wady adjran, abounding in dates8. Obal.
Placed by Knobel with Gebal and the Gebanites9. Abimael. Father of Mael;
[F 11] undetermined10. Sheba. The Sabæans, a trading people whose capital
city is Marĭaba11. Ophir. Placed by Knobel to the southwest of Arabia, the land
of the Himyarites. Lassen, Ritter, and Delitzsch, remove Ophir to the mouths of
the Indus. For the different views, see Gesenius. It would appear, however, that
the point of departure for Ophir must still be sought in Arabia12. Havilah.
District of Chaulan, in orthern Yemen; probably also colonized in India (see
Delitzsch, p308). 13. Jobab.—And their dwelling was from Mesha.—Concerning
these undetermined bounding districts of Mesha and Sephar, compare Keil.—
And by these were the nations divided.—A preparation for what follows, see the
next chapter.
And the sons of Ham. These, who occupy the second place, that the list might
conclude with the Shemites as the line of promise, number thirty, of whom only
four were immediate descendants. Their territory generally embraced the
southern portions of the globe. Hence the name Ham has been connected with
‫ס‬ַ‫מ‬ָ‫ח‬, to be warm, though Kalisch declares it to be not of Hebrew, but Egyptian
origin, appearing in the Chme of the Rosetta Stone. The most usual ancient
name of the country was Kern, the black land. Scripture speaks of Egypt as the
land of Ham (Psalms 78:51 ; Psalms 105:23; Psalms 106:22) Cush. Ethiopia,
including Arabia "quae mater est," and Abyssinia "quae colonia" (Michaelis,
Rosenmüller). The original settlement of Cush, however, is believed to have been
on the Upper ile, whence he afterwards spread to Arabia, Babylonia, India
(Knobel, Kalisch, Lange, Rawlinson). Murphy thinks he may have started from
the Caucasus, the Caspian, and. the Cossaei of Khusistan, and. migrated south
(to Egypt) and east (to India). Josephus mentions that in his day Ethiopia was
called Cush; the Syriac translates ἀ νη Ì ρ ἀ ιθιì οψ (Acts 8:27) by Cuschaeos;
the ancient Egyptian name of Ethiopia was Keesh, Kish, or Kush ('Records of
the Past, Genesis 4:7). The Cushites are described as of a black color (Jeremiah
13:23) and of great stature (Isaiah 45:14). And Mizraim. A dual form probably
designed to represent the two Egypts, upper and lower (Gesenius, Keil, Kalisch),
though it has been discovered in ancient Egyptian as the name of a Hittite chief,
written in hieroglyphics M'azrima, Ma being the sign for the dual. The old
Egyptian name is Kemi, Chemi, with obvious reference to Ham; the name Egypt
being probably derived from Kaphtah, the land of Ptah. The singular form
Mazor is found in later books (2 Kings 19:24; Isaiah 19:6; Isaiah 35:1-10 :25),
and usually denotes Lower Egypt. And Phut. Phet (Old Egyptian), Phaiat

(Coptic); the Libyans in the north of Africa (Josephus, LXX; Gesenins, Bochart).
Kalisch suggests Buto' or Butos, the capital of the delta of the ile. And Canaan.
Hebrew, Kenaan (vide on Genesis 9:25). The extent of the territory occupied by
the fourth son of Ham is defined in Genesis 10:15-19
7
The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah,
Raamah and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah:
Sheba and Dedan.
CLARKE
Verse 7. Seba
The founder of the Sabaeans. There seem to be three different people of this
name mentioned in this chapter, and a fourth in Genesis 25:3.
Havilah
Supposed by some to mean the inhabitants of the country included within that
branch of the river Pison which ran out of the Euphrates into the bay of Persia,
and bounded Arabia Felix on the east.
Sabtah
Supposed by some to have first peopled an isle or peninsula called Saphta, in the
Persian Gulf.
Raamah

Or Ragmah, for the word is pronounced both ways, because of the ain, which
some make a vowel, and some a consonant. Ptolemy mentions a city called
Regma near the Persian Gulf; it probably received its name from the person in
the text.
Sabtechah
From the river called Samidochus, in Caramanla; Bochart conjectures that the
person in the text fixed his residence in that part.
Sheba
Supposed to have had his residence beyond the Euphrates, in the environs of
Charran, Eden,
Dedan.
Supposed to have peopled a part of Arabia, on the confines of Idumea.
GILL
Verse 7. And the sons of Cush,.... The first born of Ham, who had five sons, next
mentioned, besides imrod, spoken of afterwards by himself:
Seba, and Havilah, and Sabtah, and Raamah, and Sabtecha; the first of these is
Seba, the founder of the Sabaeans, according to Josephus {p}, a people seated in
Arabia Deserta, which seem to be the Sabaeans brought from the wilderness,
Ezekiel 23:42 and very probably the same that plundered Job of his cattle, Job
1:14. The second son is Havilah, who, as Josephus {q} says, was the father of the
Evilaeans, now called Getuli; but the posterity of Havilah seem to be the same
whom Strabo {r} calls Chaulotaeans, and whom he speaks of along with the
abataeans and Agraeans, a people near Arabia Felix; and by Pliny {s} they are
called Chavelaeans, and whom he speaks of as Arabians, and places them to the
east of the Arabian Scenites. The third son is Sabtah; from him, Josephus {t}
says, came the Sabathenes, who, by the Greeks, are called Astabari; the posterity
of this man seemed to have settled in some part of Arabia Felix, since Ptolemy
{u} makes mention of Sabbatha as the metropolis of that country, called by Pliny
{w} Sabotale, or rather Sabota, as it should be read; Ptolemy places another city
in this country he calls Saphtha, which seems to have its name from this man.
The fourth son is Raamah or Ragmas, as Josephus calls {x} him, from whom
sprung the Ragmaeans he says; and most of the ancients call him Rhegmah, the
letter e being pronounced as a "G," as in Gaza and Gomorrah: his posterity
were also seated in Arabia Felix, near the Persian Gulf, where Ptolemy {y} places
the city Rhegama, or as it is in the Greek text, Regma. The fifth son is Sabtecha,
whom some make to be the father of a people in the same country, Arabia Felix,

near the Persian Gulf, called Sachalitae; but Dr. Wells {z} thinks, that the
descendants of this man might be from him regularly enough styled at first by
the Greeks, Sabtaceni, which name might be afterwards softened into Saraceni,
by which name it is well known the people of the northern parts of Arabia,
where he places the descendants of this man, were formerly denominated;
though Bochart {a} carries them into Carmania in Persia, there being a short cut
over the straits of the Persian Gulf, out of Arabia thither, where he finds a city
called Samydace, and a river, Samydachus, which he thinks may come from
Sabtecha, the letters "B" and "M" being frequently changed, as Berodach is
called Merodach, and Abana, Amana, and so in other names.
And the sons of Raamah; Sheba, and Dedan; no account is given of any of the
posterity of the other sons of Cush, only of this his fourth son Raamah, who is
said to have two sons; the first is called Sheba, from whom came the Sabaeans,
according to Josephus {b}; not the Sabaeans before mentioned in Arabia
Deserta, but those in Arabia Felix, where Pomponius Mela {c} and Strabo {d}
seat a people called Sabaeans, and whose country abounded with frankincense,
myrrh, and cinnamon; the latter makes mention of a city of theirs called
Mariaba, and seems to be the same that is now called Mareb, and formerly Saba
{e}, very likely from this man. The other son, Dedan, is called by Josephus {f}
Judadas, whom he makes to be founder of the Judadaeans, a nation of the
western Ethiopians; but the posterity of this man most probably settled in
Arabia, and yet are to be distinguished from the Dedanim in Isaiah 21:13 who
were Arabians also, but descended from Dedan the son of Jokshan, a son of
Abraham by Keturah, Genesis 25:3 as well as from the inhabitants of Dedan in
Edom, Jeremiah 25:23 it is observed, that near the city Regma before mentioned,
on the same coast eastward, was another city called Dedan; and to this day
Daden, from which the neighbouring country also takes its name, as Bochart {g}
has observed, from Barboza, an Italian writer, in his description of the kingdom
of Ormus: so that we need not doubt, says Dr. Wells {h}, but that here was the
settlement of Dedan the son of Raamah or Rhegma, and brother of Sheba.
And the sons of Cush; Seba. Meroe, in ubia, north of Ethiopia (Josephus,
'Ant.,' 2. 10). And Havilah. εὐ ΐ λαÌ (LXX.); may refer to an African tribe, the
Avalitae, south of Babelmandeb (Keil, Lange, Murphy), or the district of
Chaulan in Arabia Felix (Rosenmüller, Kalisch, Wordsworth). Genesis 10:29
mentions Havilah as a Shemite territory. Kalisch regards them as "the same
country, extending from the Arabian to the Persian Gulf, and, on account of its
vast extent, easily divided into two distinct parts" (cf. Genesis 2:11). And Sabtah.
The Astaborans of Ethiopia (Josephus, Gesenius, Kalisch); the Ethiopians of
Arabia, whose chief city was Sabota (Knobel, Rosenmüller, Lange, Keil). And
Raamah. ρεì γµα (LXX.); Ragma on the Persian Gulf, in Oman (Bochart,

Rosenmüller, Kalisch, Lange). And Sabtechah. igritia (Targum, Jonathan),
which the name Subatok, discovered on Egyptian monuments, seems to favor
(Kalisch); on the east of the Persian Gulf at Samydace of Carmania (Bochart,
Knobel, Rosenmüller, Lange). And the sons of Raamah; Sheba. The principal
city of Arabia Felix (1 Kings 10:1; Job 1:15; Job 6:19; Psalms 72:10, Psalms
72:15; Isaiah 60:6; Jeremiah 6:20; Ezekiel 27:22; Joel 3:8); occurs again
(Genesis 5:28) as a son of Joktan; probably was peopled both by Hamites and
Shemites. And Dedan. Daden on the Persian Gulf (vide Isaiah 21:13; Jeremiah
49:8; Ezekiel 25:13; Ezekiel 27:12-15).
ELLICOTT, "(7) Sons of Cush.—Of Cush there are five subdivisions, of which
one is again parted into two. These are—
1. Seba.—The name at this time of an Arabian tribe, which subsequently
migrated into Africa, and settled in Meroë, which, according to Josephus, still
bore in his days this appellation. They also left their name on the eastern side of
the Red Sea, not far to the north of the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb.
2. Havilah, upon the river Pison (Genesis 2:11), was undoubtedly a region of
Arabia, situated probably upon the Persian Gulf. Havilah is again mentioned in
Genesis 10:29.
3. Sabtah.—Probably Hadramaut, in Arabia Felix. (See ote on Genesis 10:26.)
4. Raamah, on the Persian Gulf, was divided into Dedan upon the south-west
and Sheba in the centre, while Havilah lay upon the north-west side. Of these,
Sheba subsequently rose to fame as the kingdom of the Himyarite Arabs.
5. Sabtechah.—Apparently still more to the south of Dedan, but placed by some
on the eastern side of the gulf.
Thus, then, at the time when this table was written the southern half of Arabia
was Cushite, and a swarthy race of men is still found there, especially in Yemen
and Hadramaut, far darker than the light brown Arabians. Migrating from
place to place along the sea-shore, the passage of the Cushites into ubia and
Abyssinia was easy. But their chief home was, at this period, in Mesopotamia,
and the cuneiform inscriptions have now revealed their long struggle there with
men of the race of Shem.
WHEDO , "7. Sons of Cush — The Cushite Ethiopians and Arabians.

Seba — Inhabitants of Meroe of the Upper ile, situated on the peninsula (called
an island by Herodotus) formed by the Astaboras and the ile, about eight
hundred miles south of Syene. It is often mentioned by the classic writers, and by
the Hebrew poets and prophets, as a land of precious woods and metals, the
thoroughfare of caravans that traded between Egypt and Ethiopia, and between
both of these countries and India. Queen Candace, mentioned in Acts 8:27,
seems to have reigned here. Heeren and others consider Meroe the mother of
Egyptian civilization, but Rawlinson considers it the daughter. (Herod., 2:46.)
Havilah — The Macrobian Ethiopians, who dwelt in what is now Abyssinia.
There was also a Shemitic Havilah (Genesis 10:29) in Arabia. The two families
probably intermingled, and thus bore a common name. See note on Cush.
Sabtah — Ethiopians of Hadramont, in South Arabia, whose chief city was
Sabta, Sabota, or Sabotha. Arrian mentions inhabitants of South Arabia,
distinguished from true Arabs by stature, darker skin, and habits of life, such as
eating fish, (ichthyophagi.) iebuhr and other travellers and missionaries
confirm these differences, and also declare that the language of this people
differs wholly from the Arabic. (Knobel.)
Raamah — This name still remains in South-eastern Arabia, the Rhegma of the
old geographers, where, according to Pliny and Ptolemy, dwelt a fish-eating
people, (ichthyophagi.) We learn from travellers that they still exist in Omaun,
distinguished from the Arabs by colour, language, and habits. (Ritter.) The
merchants of Raamah and Sheba are mentioned by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 27:22) as
trading at Tyre in spices, precious stones, and gold. Sheba is to be distinguished
from the Shemitic Sheba, (Genesis 10:28.) The Cushite Sheba was on the Persian
Gulf, traces of which may, perhaps, be found in the modern Saba, the
thoroughfare of the Hebrew commerce with India. The Shemitic Sheba was an
Arabic town in South Arabia, and appears as a kingdom in the days of Solomon,
when the “queen of Sheba” came, with a caravan laden with gold and precious
stones and “great store of spices,” to test the wisdom of the Hebrew king. Dedan
is probably still to be traced in Dodan, on the east coast of Arabia. Sheba and
Dedan are also given (Genesis 25:3) as descendants of Abraham by Keturah.
This also seems to point to an early intermingling of the Shemitic and Hamitic
families.
Sabtecha — The dark-skinned Carmanians. (They were a fish-eating people,)
described by the old settlers as dwelling on the coast east of the Persian Gulf.
They had a river and a city Sabis.
COFFMA , “Verse 7

The critical writers, ever watchful to discover "contradictions" complain that
Sheba and Havilah in this verse, where they appear as Cushites descended from
Ham, appear again in Genesis 10:28,29 as Shemites![8] This only means however
that some of the same names were used by various branches of oah's family, a
most natural occurrence. It is a characteristic of the Bible that many names
appear again and again. Even in the Twelve, there are two Simons, two Jameses,
and two Judases. There are two Josephs in the geneology of Jesus, also three
Matthats, two Mattathiases, two Melchis and two Simeons! The poverty of the
multiple document theory is evident in the use by its advocates of such a fact as
the reappearance here and there of a familiar name in their vain efforts to
sustain it.
8
Cush was the father[4] of imrod, who grew to
be a mighty warrior on the earth.
CLARKE
Verse 8. imrod
Of this person little is known, as he is not mentioned except here and and in 1
Chronicles 1:10, which is evidently a copy of the text in Genesis. He is called a
mighty hunter before the Lord; and from Genesis 10:10, we learn that he
founded a kingdom which included the cities Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh,
in the land of Shinar. Though the words are not definite, it is very likely he was a
very bad man. His name imrod comes from marad, he rebelled; and the
Targum, on 1 Chronicles 1:10, says: imrod began to be a mighty man in sin, a
murderer of innocent men, and a rebel before the Lord. The Jerusalem Targum
says: "He was mighty in hunting (or in prey) and in sin before God, for he was a
hunter of the children of men in their languages; and he said unto them, Depart
from the religion of Shem, and cleave to the institutes of imrod." The Targum

of Jonathan ben Uzziel says: "From the foundation of the world none was ever
found like imrod, powerful in hunting, and in rebellions against the Lord."
The Syriac calls him a warlike giant. The word tsayid, which we render hunter,
signifies prey; and is applied in the Scriptures to the hunting of men by
persecution, oppression, and tyranny. Hence it is likely that imrod, having
acquired power, used it in tyranny and oppression; and by rapine and violence
founded that domination which was the first distinguished by the name of a
kingdom on the face of the earth. How many kingdoms have been founded in the
same way, in various ages and nations from that time to the present! From the
imrods of the earth, God deliver the world!
Mr. Bryant, in his Mythology, considers imrod as the principal instrument of
the idolatry that afterwards prevailed in the family of Cush, and treats him as an
arch rebel and apostate. Mr. Richardson, who was the determined foe of Mr.
Bryant's whole system, asks, Dissertation, p. 405, "Where is the authority for
these aspersions? They are nowhere to be discovered in the originals, in the
versions, nor in the paraphrases of the sacred writings." If they are not to be
found either in versions or paraphrases of the sacred writings, the above
quotations are all false.
CALVI
8. And Cush begat imrod . It is certain that Cush was the prince of the
Ethiopians. Moses relates the singular history of his son imrod, because he
began to be eminent in an unusual degree. Moreover, I thus interpret the
passage, that the condition of men was at that time moderate; so that if some
excelled others, they yet did not on that account domineer, nor assume to
themselves royal power; but being content with a degree of dignity, governed
others by civil laws and had more of authority than power. For Justin, from
Trogus Pompeius, declares this to have been the most ancient condition of the
world. ow Moses says, that imrod, as if forgetting that he was a man, took
possession of a higher post of honor. oah was at that time yet living, and was
certainly great and venerable in the eyes of all. There were also other excellent
men; but such was their moderation, that they cultivated equality with their
inferiors, who yielded them a spontaneous rather than a forced reverence. The
ambition of imrod disturbed and broke through the boundaries of this
reverence. Moreover, since it sufficiently appears that, in this sentence of Moses,
the tyrant is branded with an eternal mark of infamy, we may hence conclude,
how highly pleasing to God is a mild administration of affairs among men. And
truly, whosoever remembers that he is a man, will gladly cultivate the society of
others. With respect to the meaning of the terms, ‫ציד‬ ( tsaid ,) properly signifies
hunting , as the Hebrew grammarians state; yet it is often taken for food 310 But
whether Moses says that he was robust in hunting, or in violently seizing upon
prey; he metaphorically intimates that he was a furious man, and approximated
to beasts rather than to men. The expression, “Before the Lord,” 311 seems to
me to declare that imrod attempted to raise himself above the order of men;

just as proud men become transported by a vain self-confidence, that they may
look down as from the clouds upon others.
Wherefore it is said 312 Since the verb is in the future tense, it may be thus
explained, imrod was so mighty and imperious that it would be proper to say
of any powerful tyrant, that he is another imrod. Yet the version of Jerome is
satisfactory, that thence it became a proverb concerning the powerful and the
violent, that they were like imrod. 313 or do I doubt that God intended the
first author of tyranny to be transmitted to odium by every tongue.
WESLEY, "Verse 8. Began to be mighty on the earth - That is, whereas those that went
before him were content to stand upon the same level with their neighbours, Nimrod
could not rest in this parity, but he would top his neighbours, and Lord over them. The
same spirit that the giants before the flood were acted by, chap. vi, 4, now revived in him;
so soon was that tremendous judgment, which the pride and tyranny of those mighty men
brought upon the world, forgotten.
ELLICOTT, "(8) Cush begat imrod.—This does not mean that imrod was the
son of Cush, but only that Cush was his ancestor. In the days of imrod population
had become numerous, and whereas each tribe and family had hitherto lived in
independence, subject only to the authority of the natural head, he was able, by his
personal vigour, to reduce several tribes to obedience, to prevail upon them to build
and inhabit cities, and to consolidate them into one body politic.
He began to be a mighty one.—Heb., gibbor= warrior. (See ote on Genesis 6:4.)
The LXX. translate giant, whence in fable imrod is identified with the Orion of the
Greeks, in Hebrew Chesil, and in Arabic Jabbar; but this identification is entirely
fanciful, as is probably the idea that he is the Izdubar of the Chaldean legends
(Chald. Genesis, p. 321). Following the unscholarlike method of explaining Hamite
names by Hebrew roots, commentators interpret imrod as meaning rebel; but the
Biblical narrative speaks rather in his commendation, and the foolish traditions
which blacken his reputation date only from the time of Josephus. Mr. Sayce
connects his name with the Accadian town Amarda (Chald. Gen., p. 191).
COKE, "Genesis 10:8. Cush begat imrod, &c.— imrod's impiety and apostacy
are here marked out, as well as his tyranny and domination. The word imrod
signifies an apostate or rebel. The word rendered hunter, ‫ציד‬ tzaid, is used as well
for catching, or ensnaring souls, as for catching game. See Ezekiel 18:20-21. Great
oppressors also are called hunters, Jeremiah 16:16. And the phrase, before the
Lord, may signify, his opposition to the Lord, his own desertion of the divine
presence and regard, as well as his endeavours to seduce others from it. So that, I
conceive, he is called thus mighty, because of the tyrannical domination which he
exercised over the men of his times; disregarding the worship and reverence of God,
and totally apostatizing from it, oppressing and subjugating men to himself, as

hunters do the wild beasts they have taken. See Lamentations 3:52. The versions
confirm this interpretation: the LXX has it, "he began to be a giant hunter against
the Lord God." The Arabic has it, "he was a terrible giant before the Lord." The
Syriac, "he was a giant warrior before, or against, the Lord." In which places the
word giant has probably a reference to the race of giants and their enormities before
the flood; imrod having acted in the same spirit and manner as they had done
before.
WHEDO , "8. imrod — If this is a Hebrew or Shemitic word, it is probably
related to the verb ‫,מרד‬ to rebel, and means, let us rebel; but it may be an Hamitic
name. The author here naturally turns aside to notice the foundation of the first
great monarchies of the earth, Babylon and ineveh. Brief digressions of this kind
are not uncommon with the Hebrew chroniclers. Comp. 1 Chronicles 2:4 . imrod is
clearly a person, and appears to be separately introduced as such, but he may have
been removed several generations from Cush; for the Hebrew usage allows the
dropping out of intermediate names in order to introduce an important personage.
A mighty one — Mighty in personal prowess; warlike.
COFFMA , “Verse 8
" imrod, the mighty hunter ..." As the founder of both Babylon and ineveh, both
of which were noted for their rebellion against God, Babylon, in fact, having come
to stand in all ages as the great symbol for opposition and rebellion against God,
imrod must be considered to have exhibited the same evil qualities. Whitelaw
wrote that:
"Eastern tradition has painted imrod as a gigantic oppressor of the peoples'
liberties and an impious rebel against Divine authority. Josephus credited him with
having instigated the building of the tower of Babel."[9]
The unreliability of tradition is, of course, notorious; but there seem to be good
reasons for accepting it in the case of imrod. Under his power there rose the first
of the godless states that were to plague the existence of the human family
throughout its whole sojourn on earth. The very name, imrod means "We will
revolt."[10] and the expression "mighty hunter" likely means, "one who hunts men
to enslave them."[11] Some scholars have translated it "tyrant" or "despot."
And Cush begat—not necessarily as immediate progenitor, any ancestor being in
Hebrew styled a father— imrod; the rebel, from maradh, to rebel; the name of a
person, not of a people;— amuret in ancient Egyptian. Though not one of the great
ethnic heads, he is introduced into the register of nations as the founder of
imperialism. Under him society passed from the patriarchal condition, in which
each separate clan or tribe owns the sway of its natural head, into that (more abject
or more civilized according as it is viewed) in which many different clans or tribes
recognize the sway of one who is not their natural head, but has acquired his
ascendancy and dominion by conquest. This is the principle of monarchism. Eastern

tradition has painted imrod as a gigantic oppressor of the people's liberties and an
impious rebel-against the Divine authority. Josephus credits him with having
instigated the building of the tower of Babel. He has been identified with the Orion
of the Greeks. Scripture may seem to convey a bad impression of imrod, but it
does not sanction the absurdities of Oriental legend. He began to be a mighty one—
Gibbor (vide Genesis 6:4); what he had been previously being expressed in Genesis
10:5—in the earth. ot ἐ πι τῆ ς γῆ ς (LXX.), as if pointing to his gigantic stature,
but either among men generally, with reference to his widespread fame, or perhaps
better "in the land where he dwelt, which was not Babel, but Arabia (vide Genesis
10:6).
JFB
8. imrod--mentioned as eclipsing all his family in renown. He early
distinguished himself by his daring and successful prowess in hunting wild
beasts. By those useful services he earned a title to public gratitude; and, having
established a permanent ascendancy over the people, he founded the first
kingdom in the world [Ge 10:10].
10. the beginning of his kingdom--This kingdom, of course, though then
considered great, would be comparatively limited in extent, and the towns but
small forts.
11. Out of that land went forth Asshur--or, as the Margin has it, "He
[ imrod] at the head of his army went forth into Assyria," that is, he pushed his
conquests into that country.
and builded ineveh--opposite the town of Mosul, on the Tigris, and the
other towns near it. This raid into Assyria was an invasion of the territories of
Shem, and hence the name " imrod," signifying "rebel," is supposed to have
been conferred on him from his daring revolt against the divine distribution.
GILL
Verse 8. And Cush begat imrod,.... Besides the other five sons before
mentioned; and probably this was his youngest son, being mentioned last; or
however he is reserved to this place, because more was to be spoken of him than
of any of the rest. Sir Walter Raleigh {i} thinks that imrod was begotten by
Cush after his other children were become fathers, and of a later time than some
of his grandchildren and nephews: and indeed the sons of Raamah, the fourth
son of Cush, are taken notice of before him: however, the Arabic writers {k}
must be wrong, who make him to be the son of Canaan, whereas it is so clear
and express from hence that he was the son of Cush. In the Greek version he is

called ebrod, and by Josephus, ebrodes, which is a name of Bacchus; and
indeed imrod is the same with the Bacchus of the Heathens, for Bacchus is no
other than Barchus, the son of Cush; and Jacchus, which is another of his names
in Jah of Cush, or the god the son of Cush; and it is with respect to his original
name ebrod, or ebrodes, that Bacchus is represented as clothed with the skin
of
nebriv, "nebris," or a young hind, as were also his priests; and so in his name
imrod there may be an allusion to armn, " imra," which, in the Chaldee
language, signifies a tiger, and which kind of creatures, with others, he might
hunt; tigers drew in the chariot of Bacchus, and he was sometimes clothed with
the skin of one; though the name of imrod is usually derived from drm, "to
rebel," because he was a rebel against God, as is generally said; and because, as
Jarchi observes, he caused all the world to rebel against God, by the advice he
gave to the generation of the division, or confusion of languages, the builders of
Babel: he seems to be the same with Belus, the founder of Babel and of the
Babylonian empire, whom Diodorus Siculus {l} confounds with inus his son:
he began to be a mighty man in the earth: that is, he was the first that formed a
plan of government, and brought men into subjection to it; and so the Jews {m}
make him to be the first king after God; for of the ten kings they speak of in the
world, God is the first, and imrod the second; and so the Arabic writers {n}
say, he was the first of the kings that were in the land of Babylon; and that,
seeing the figure of a crown in the heaven, he got a golden one made like it, and
put it on his head; hence it was commonly reported, that the crown descended to
him from heaven; for this refers not to his gigantic stature, as if he was a giant,
as the Septuagint render it; or a strong robust man, as Onkelos; nor to his moral
character, as the Targum of Jonathan, which is, "he began to be mighty in sin,
and to rebel before the Lord in the earth;" but to his civil character, as a ruler
and governor: he was the first that reduced bodies of people and various cities
into one form of government, and became the head of them; either by force and
usurpation, or it may be with the consent of the people, through his persuasion
of them, and on account of the mighty and heroic actions done by him.
Genesis 10:8-10
imrod means "let us revolt." In the context of Genesis 10, there is absolutely no
mention of animals that he supposedly hunted. The context has to do with the
description of character, moral spirituality, and culture. imrod was a mighty
man, a mighty hunter in terms of men. He was like the ephilim (see Genesis
6:4). He was a giant of a moral and spiritual nature.
What was imrod doing when he was hunting? imrod hunted other ephilim

and eliminated them. He got rid of the competition and established a despotic
and autocratic system of government. He did that before the Lord. In other
words, he did what he did right in front of God. God was aware of what he was
doing. The revolt was not hidden.
If a person is standing before another, he can stand before him as a friend, as
neutral, or as an enemy. There is already an indication of how imrod stood
before the Lord, because he is named "he who revolts." He is standing before
the Lord as an enemy. He is against God, as chapter 11 shows.
imrod founded a city, and he named it Babilu. ot Babel. He called it Babilu,
which means "Gate of God." "Babel" is what the Hebrews called it, and thus
when Moses, a Hebrew, wrote Genesis, he called it "Babel." Babel is the Hebrew
name. It sounds somewhat similar to Babilu, but Babel means "confusion."
John W. Ritenbaugh
Mike Turner
View all sermons by Mike Turner
Print Friendly Version Send to Friend
The Religion Of imrod
Genesis 10:8-10:11 ( IV, IRV, T IV, KJV) Print verse
The Religion Of imrod
Gen 10:8-11, 11:1-9
I. otice imrod’s Rebellion. Vs 8-9
His very name means "rebel or we will rebel".
otice also the words V9 "before the Lord" This phrase literally means "against

God"
imrod rebelled against the Lord.
a. He disregarded the past of his family.
His grandfather, and great grandfather along with the others who survived the
great flood left a great legacy to their family. Out of all mankind they were the
only ones who believed God. They had found grace in the sight of God. After the
floods receded from the earth, the first thing that his great grandfather oah did
when he came from the ark was to build an altar, and offer a sacrifice to the
Lord. This was something that pleased the Lord.
irmod would have nothing to do with the faith of his ancestors. Instead of
learning from their experiences, he rebelled against their teaching, and their
practices.
imrod’s actions became the subject of a saying back in those days...
Look at V 9 Even as imrod the mighty hunter before the LORD.
When I was rebellious as a child, my mom would say.......Mike you’re as
stubborn as a mule or when I tell you something it goes in one ear, and out the
other.....but imagine in imrod’s day........perhaps they said to a rebellious
child.........."You’re as rebellious as imrod the mighty hunter who turned
against God !"
Can’t you see a bit of the "prodigal" in imrod. He wanted to take care of
himself. He reminds me of the song of Frank Sinatra...."I did it my way"
b. He disobeyed the principles of God.
God commanded oah, and his family when they stepped from the ark that they
had a responsibility to 9:1 Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
This didn’t just mean that God wanted to earth repopulated, but I believe also
that he wanted to replenish the earth with people of faith.
imrod was content with making a name for himself. He cared nothing of the
kind of faith that his family had before him There is no records in the scripture

of imrod ever having any children of his own.
c. He disbelieved the promises of God.
In my heart I believe that imrod resented what God had done through the
flood,(perhaps imrod was the first one who asked.....how could a loving God
?????) and he was determined to set himself against God to make certain that
they would be able to survive the next flood.
Yet, God had already promised that he would not destroy the earth, and the
inhabitants again by flood. The rainbow in the sky was a sign of his promise.
Can’t you see imrod as a child......his grandparents pointing to a rainbow in the
sky.....that’s a sign from God of his promises ! I believe that imrod hated
rainbows because he was a rebel against God in his heart, and was determined
that he didn’t need God or his promises nor his protection !
II. otice imrod’s Rulership. Vs 10-11
In V8 the phrase "mighty one" is "warrior, champion, ruler....and tyrant".
imrod made quite a name for himself upon the earth. imrod’s was a selfish
person whose desire was to prove that he did not have to depend upon God as
had his family ! He would make it on his own !
The idea of "mighty hunter" shows his great skill, and also his ambition. He was
a great sportsman, but his greatest sport may have been that of hunting men.
imrod was no doubt a conqueror of men.
a. He established a domain.
V10 the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and
Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Rather than replenishing the earth, imrod is determined to rule over his own
domain, and to make it as large and prosperous as possible.
What a kingdom it was ! imrod was the founder of the place called Babylon,
and surrounding areas which is modern day Iraq.
All the cities mentioned above would become major worship centers for many

pagan deities including the "moon god"........."allah"
b. He extended his dominion.
V11. A person whose main ambition, objective, and purpose in life is to be above
others, to have more than others is never satisfied. Those who will make
pleasure, power, and prestige their pursuit are never content no matter how
much they might gain.
imrod is not content with what he has established but goes forth now to
Assyria where he builds cities in ineveh, Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen. These
cities also became worship centers for pagain deities.
c. He excercised his domination. Chapter 11
Having gained many followers, and having conquered others, he engages them in
his plans, and usurps his power over them. He has a plan, and his plan requires
people ! The person who would be dictator can only be dictator if the people
below him are willing to follow. imrod had quite a following !
III. otice imrod’s Religion 11:3-4
As I said earlier, imrod had been given quite a legacy to carry forward, but he
rebelled against it, and it would have no part of it. His family had found grace in
the eyes of the Lord, but he prefers trying to make it on his own. His
ambition......."to make a name for himself"
Grace glorifies the Lord while religion glorifies the man !
otice the drastic contrast between oah & imrod !
oah( imrod’s great grandfather built a ark so that his family might be saved !)
imrod built a tower so that he could make a name !
We see these two attitudes still present and at work in our society today.
Some are concerned about the family structure, and the salvation of there

family...children.
While others are only concerned about the making of a name..........
oah followed the blueprint of God ! imrod had plans of his own.
a. His religion was secular.
11:3 And they said one to another,.........let us make brick......
11:4 And they said........let us build us a city
11:4 and let us make us a name.
imrod may have actually been the first secular humanist ! It was all about him
! It was all about them !
God comes down to man that we might be lifted up to him. imrod, and his
religion says let build our own way. Let’s do it on our own !
While his great grandfather oah found grace in the eyes of the Lord, imrod
preferred making a name for himself, and getting himself to heaven independent
of God.
b. His religion was sinful.
We don’t often think of religion as sinful. In fact there is a common
saying........"It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as believe something".
Listen folks, that is one of the most foolish concepts in the world. It is also what
one of the most destructive. What we believe is important because it influences
our behavior, and most important it decides where we will spend eternity !
imrod’s religion was sinful because it was utter rebellion against God.
c. His religion was sympathetic.
imrod’s religion was the beginning of the ecumenical movement.

It is the religion that prevails in our society today. It is a religion that says let’s
put aside our beliefs and all come together. It is the religion that will embrace
any type of belief, and any form of behavior.
We have talked about this on several occassions......the most politcially correct
term of our day is "tolerance". It is a word used and spoken in our kindergarten
classes, from pulpits across America, from the sidewalks, and from the
governmental bldgs in Washington !
I want you to understand tonight where I’m coming from. We should be loving
people. We should be careful so that our attitude does not come across as being
hateful, and bigoted. Yet, at the same stand we must take a stand for what is
right, and against what is wrong. We can be sympathetic to the plight of sinners,
and to those of other beliefs, but to embrace their beliefs, and behavior is to put
a blessing on the very thing that may lead to their destruction....both here, and in
eternity !
imrod’s religion is the harlot mentioned in Rev 17
The true church is one that is a bride without spot, and without blemish.
The World’s church is one that is a harlot. It is filled with blasphemy,
abominations and filthiness !
V5. And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLO THE
GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS A D ABOMI ATIO S OF THE
EARTH.
otice V 6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with
the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great
admiration.
Two dangerous attitudes in the church.........
Don’t offend anyone !
Don’t get involved !

IV. otice imrod’s Ruin ! 11:5-8
a. The Lord Saw. V5
And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of
men builded.
The Lord sees, and knows everything, but when the scripture speaks of the Lord
coming down to see for himself, it denotes the seriousness of the matter !
There is something we better understand, and do so clearly. God knows what
going on both on this earth, and in each of our hearts.
He knows whether our religion is sincere or whether it’s a substitute.
b. The Lord Spoke V6
He spoke out against their ecumenicalism.
.......the people is one, and they have one language
He spoke out against their enterprise.
.......this they begin to do:
He spoke out against their evil.
........nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
Compare to Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the
earth and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil
continually.
c. The Lord Scattered V8
The phrase "scattered them abroad" is "to dash into pieces"

The Lord dealth with them by confounding their languages where they could no
longer communicate, and by dispersing them.
d. The Lord Shattered V8
...and they left off to build the city.
The work of man shall come to nought ! The religion of man is doomed. God
shall one day scatter, and shatter.
Compare how God deals with the great harlot Babylon in Rev 18
Contributor: David Parsons
View all sermons by David Parsons
Print Friendly Version Send to Friend
imrod
Genesis 10:7-10:12 ( IV, IRV, T IV, KJV) Print verse
Sermon. HRB. 6:30pm. 09:01:05.
imrod.
Reading: Genesis 10:7-12.
Introduction / illustration.
*** John Logie Baird / not too many people would recognise
the name of the man whose work has had as much impact

on the world as anyone in the last eighty years.
John Logie Baird produced the first working television
- as early as 1926.
There are people whose work has made and moulded civilisation -
but they get forgotten as time goes by.
One character in the Bible - who moulded much of the
world - was imrod.
To many people - imrod is the name of a piece of music and an
aeroplane.
In his day - imrod was character to be reckoned with.
Biblically his feats were prodigous.
Building several cities, including the famous (and
infamous) inevah his name meant "rebel".
He was noted for his hunting and military skills and
external writings about him abound.
He instituted a form of worship - of himself - and
was later known as Marduk - a Babylonian God.
He was instrumental in the building of the Tower of
Babel.
A lot of Israel’s problems originate from him - the practices of
Baal worship being linked to him.
Yet - we know and hear very little - if anything about

him today.
In his day - he must have been a feared and fearsome
despot - on a level with dictators like mussolini and
Idi Amin.
Like a tornado - he came with an impact that was damaging - and
leaves the scene of history - almost unknown.
There have been many like him who have come and gone - making a
big impact when they lived - but are virtually unknown now.
Contrast this with the way that Jesus ministered and the
impact Jesus has had on history:-
Born in poverty and obscurity Jesus has inspired more human
effort and aquired more lasting fame than anyone else who has
ever lived.
Living most of his life in a backwater of the Roman Empire He has
inspired world wide movements for over two thousand years.
Ending His life - so it was thought - as a victim of Roman
execution - He has inspired endless self sacrifice and changed
human nature in a way thought impossible.
He never wrote a book, but the world is filled with libraries
inspired by His life and some of the greatest academic minds who
have ever lived have dedicated their lives to understanding His
teaching and life.
He never lifted his hand against anyone - and countless thousands
if not millions have given their lives selflessly for His cause.

His active ministry lasted about three years. Most of it was
worked out in a small little known country where He simply taught
and healed people. His ministry has extended world wide and today
there are literally billions of people dedicated to Him.
We believe much of His life was spent working as a craftsman but
He left no artefacts to mark his passage. He has since inspired
paintings, architecture and culture world wide.
The world has seen the rise and fall of about fourteen great
empires. Jesus never came to establish an earthly kingdom but
absolutely billions have pledged loyalty to His Kingdom.
Quote:-
"He was born in an obscure village
The child of a peasant woman
He grew up in another obscure village
Where he worked in a carpenter shop
Until he was thirty
He never wrote a book
He never held an office
He never went to college
He never visited a big city
He never travelled more than two hundred miles
From the place where he was born
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness
He had no credentials but himself
He was only thirty three
His friends ran away

One of them denied him
He was turned over to his enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing
The only property he had on earth
When he was dead
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend
ineteen centuries have come and gone
And today Jesus is the central figure of the human race
And the leader of mankind’s progress
All the armies that have ever marched
All the navies that have ever sailed
All the parliaments that have ever sat
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that one solitary life".
This same Jesus - can still change the lives of people
today - those who believe in Him have His promise of
eternal life.
He will never be forgotten or fade into obscurity.
9
He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; that

is why it is said, "Like imrod, a mighty hunter
before the LORD."
GILL
Verse 9. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord,.... Which might be literally
true; for, from the time of the flood to his days, wild beasts might increase very
much, and greatly annoy men who dwelt very likely for the most part in tents
scattered up and down in divers places: so that he did a good office in hunting
and destroying them. An Arabic writer {o}, of some authority in the eastern
parts, says, that by hunting he got food sufficient for the builders of Babel, while
they were employed therein; and Aben Ezra interprets it in his favour, that he
built altars, and the creatures he took in hunting he offered them on them a
burnt offering to God. But neither of these is probable; however, it may be
observed, that in this way by hunting he arrived to the power and dominion over
men he afterwards had; for not only he ingratiated himself into their favour by
hunting down and destroying the wild beasts which molested them, but by these
means he might gather together a large number of young men, strong and
robust, to join him in hunting; whereby they were inured to hardships, and
trained up to military exercises, and were taught the way of destroying men as
well as beasts; and by whose help and assistance he might arrive to the
government he had over men; and hunting, according to Aristotle {p}, is a part
of the military art, which is to be used both on beasts, and on such men who are
made to be ruled, but are not willing; and it appears, from Xenophon {q}, that
the kings of Persia were fitted for war and government by hunting, and which is
still reckoned in many countries a part of royal education. And it may be
remarked, that, as imrod and Bacchus are the same, as before observed, one of
the titles of Bacchus is zagreuv, "an hunter." Cedrenus {r} says, that the
Assyrians deified ebrod, or imrod, and placed him among the constellations
of heaven, and called him Orion; the same first discovered the art of hunting,
therefore they joined to Orion the star called the dog star. However, besides his
being in a literal sense an hunter, he was in a figurative sense one, a tyrannical
ruler and governor of men. The Targum of Jonathan is; "he was a powerful
rebel before the Lord;" and that of Jerusalem, "he was powerful in hunting in
sin before the Lord," and another Jewish writer {s} says, he was called a mighty
hunter, because he was all his days taking provinces by force, and spoiling
others of their substance; and that he was "before the Lord," truly so, and he

seeing and taking notice of it, openly and publicly, and without fear of him, and
in a bold and impudent manner, in despite of him, see Genesis 6:11. The
Septuagint render it, "against the Lord"; he intended, as Jarchi's note is, to
provoke him to his face:
wherefore it is said; in a proverbial way, when any man is grown mighty and
powerful, or is notoriously wicked, or is become a tyrant and an oppressor of the
people, that he is
even as imrod the mighty hunter before the Lord. This was a proverb used in
the times of Moses, as it is common now with us to call a hunter imrod.
WESLEY, "Verse 9. Nimrod was a mighty hunter - This he began with, and for this
became famous to a proverb. Some think he did good with his hunting, served his country
by ridding it of wild beasts, and so insinuated himself into the affections of his
neighbours, and got to be their prince. And perhaps, under pretense of hunting, he
gathered men under his command, to make himself master of the country. Thus he
became a mighty hunter, a violent invader of his neighbour's rights and properties. And
that, before the Lord - Carrying all before him, and endeavouring to make all his own by
force and violence. He thought himself a mighty prince; but before the Lord, that is, in
God's account, he was but a mighty hunter. Note, Great conquerers are but great hunters.
Alexander and Caesar would not make such a figure in scripture history as they do in
common history. The former is represented in prophecy but as a he-goat pushing, Dan.
viii, 5. Nimrod was a mighty hunter against the Lord, so the seventy; that is, he set up
idolatry, as Jeroboam did, for the confirming of his usurped dominion; that he might set
up a new government, he set up a new religion upon the ruin of the primitive constitution
of both.
BENSON, "Genesis 10:9. Nimrod was a mighty hunter — In the Septuagint it is, He was
a giant hunter: — the Arabic has it, He was a terrible giant before the Lord: and the
Syriac, He was a great warrior. It is probable he began with hunting, and for this became
famous to a proverb. He served his country by ridding it of wild beasts, and so insinuating
himself into the affections of his neighbours, he got to be their prince. And perhaps, under
pretence of hunting, he gathered men under his command, to make himself master of the
country. Thus he became a mighty hunter, a violent invader of his neighbours’ rights and
properties. Great conquerors are but great hunters before the Lord. Alexander and Cesar
would not make such a figure in Scripture history as they do in common history. The
former is represented in prophecy, but as a he-goat pushing, Daniel 8:5.
ELLICOTT, "(9) He was a mighty hunter.—When men were still leading a pastoral life,
and were but poorly armed, the war with wild beasts was a most important and dangerous
occupation. Probably from single combats with fierce animals, Nimrod, now recognised
as a public benefactor, was led to organise hunts upon a large scale, and so, like Romulus,
became the chief of a band of the most spirited and vigorous shepherds. “With their aid,
he next undertook the more serious duty of introducing order and rule among men who

had hitherto lived in scattered groups without control, and without the means of
suppressing feuds and of punishing deeds of violence.
Before the Lord.—A strong superlative. (Comp. Genesis 13:13.)
WHEDON, "9. A mighty hunter — Or, a hero of hunting; a powerful man in the chase.
Such a hero would also be likely to become a mighty warrior. Bold and expert hunters
have usually been the great pioneers of civilization, and their prowess became developed
by fierce conflicts both with savage beasts and savage men. The Assyrian monuments,
covered with scenes of hunting and of war, commemorate the daring and the prowess of
ancient Ninevite kings. Accordingly some of the best interpreters (as Delitzsch and
Lange) regard this description of Nimrod as a praiseworthy account of his work as a
pioneer of culture and civilization; and the proverb recorded in this verse, instead of
being a stigma on his name, was rather intended to commemorate him as a benefactor of
the race. Others, however, understand the words before the Lord to imply some hostility
towards Jehovah; like the phrase before God (Elohim) in Genesis 6:11, which seems to
enhance the wickedness of the antediluvians. So the Septuagint ( εναντιον) and the
Jerusalem Targum. These regard him as notoriously violent; so bad that God could not
take his eyes from him. (Lewis.) Nimrod was the first of the long line of bloody
conquerors whose cruel ambition has cursed the earth.
He was a mighty hunter. Originally doubtless of wild beasts, which, according to Bochart,
was the first step to usurping dominion over men and using them for battle. "Nempe
venationum prsetextu collegit juvenum robustam manum, quam talibus exercitus ad belli
labores induravit" ('Phaleg.,' 54.12). Before the Lord.
1. ἐ ναντιì ον κυριì ου (LXX.), in a spirit of defiance.
2. Coram Deo, in God's sight, as an aggravation of his sin—cf. Genesis 13:3 (Cajetan).
3. As a superlative, declaring his excellence—of. Genesis 13:10; Genesis 30:8; Genesis
35:5; 1 Samuel 11:7; John 3:3; Acts 7:20 (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Kalisch, ' Speaker's
Commentary').
4. With the Divine approbation, as one who broke the way through rude, uncultivated
nature for the institutions of Jehovah (Lange). Cf. Genesis 17:18; Genesis 24:40; 1
Samuel 11:15; Psalms 41:12. Probably the first or the third conveys the sense of the
expression. Wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the (a) mighty hunter before the Lord.
The precise import of this is usually determined by the view taken of the previous phrase.

10
The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon,
Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in[5] Shinar.[6]
CLARKE
Verse 10. The beginning of his kingdom was Babel
babel signifies confusion; and it seems to have been a very proper name for the
commencement of a kingdom that appears to have been founded in apostasy
from God, and to have been supported by tyranny, rapine, and oppression.
In the land of Shinar.
The same as mentioned Genesis 11:2. It appears that, as Babylon was built on
the river Euphrates, and the tower of Babel was in the land of Shinar,
consequently Shinar itself must have been in the southern part of Mesopotamia.
GILL
Verse 10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel,.... The city of Babel, or
Babylon, which was built by his direction; for though Babylon is by some
writers said to be built by Semiramis, the wife of inus, and others by inus
himself, yet the truest account is, that it was built by Belus, the same with
imrod. Curtius {t} says, Semiramis built it; or, as most believe, adds he, Belus,
whose royal palace is shown: and Berosus {u}, the Chaldean, blames the Greek
writers for ascribing it to Semiramis; and Abydenus {w}, out of Megasthenes,
affirms, that Belus surrounded Babylon with a wall: however, this was the head
of the kingdom of imrod, as Onkelos renders it, or his chief city, or where he
first began to reign. Here he set up his kingdom, which he enlarged and
extended afterwards to other places; and from hence it appears, that what is
related in this context, concerning imrod, is by way of anticipation; for it was
not a fact that he was a mighty man, or a powerful prince possessed of a
kingdom, until after the building of Babel, and the confusion of languages there;
when those that continued on the spot either chose him for their ruler, or he, by
power or policy, got the dominion over them. Artapanus {x}, an Heathen writer,

relates, that the giants which inhabited Babylon being taken away by the gods
for their impiety, one of them, Belus, escaped death and dwelt in Babylon, and
took up his abode in the tower which he had raised up, and which, from him the
founder of it, was called Belus; so that this, as Moses says, was the beginning of
his kingdom, together with
Erech, and Accad, and Calneh in the land of Shinar, where the city and tower of
Babel were built: for of these four cities, which were all in the same country, did
the kingdom of imrod consist; they all, either by force or by consent, were
brought into subjection to him, and were under one form of government, and is
the first kingdom known to be set up in the world. Erech, according to the
Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, is Hades, or Edessa, a city in
Mesopotamia; but it is rather thought to be the name with the Aracca of Ptolemy
{y}, and the Arecha of Marcellinus {z}, placed by them both in Susiana; though
one would think it should be that city in Chaldea which took its present Arabic
name of Erak from Erech: the Arabic writers say {a}, when Irac or Erac is
absolutely put, it denotes Babylonia, or Chaldea, in the land of Shinar; and they
say that Shinar is in Al-Erac. The next city, Accad, according to the Targums of
Jonathan and Jerusalem, is etzibin, or isibis, a city in Mesopotamia; in the
Septuagint version it is called Archad; and Ctesias {b} relates, that at the Persian
Sittace was a river called Argad, which Bochart {c} thinks carries in it a
manifest trace of this name; and observes, from Strabo {d}, that that part of
Babylon nearest to Susa was called Sitacena. And the other city, Calneh,
according to the above Targums, is Ctesiphon, and is generally thought to be the
place intended, and was a town upon the Tigris, near to Seleucia in Babylon; it
was first called Chalone, and its name was changed to Ctesiphon by Pacorus,
king of the Persians. It is in Isaiah 10:9 called Calno, and by the Septuagint
version there the Chalane, which adds, "where the tower was built;"
and from whence the country called the Chalonitis by Pliny {e} had its name, the
chief city of which was Ctesiphon; and who says {f} Chalonitis is joined with
Ctesiphon. Thus far goes the account of imrod; and, though no mention is
made of his death, yet some writers are not silent about it. Abulpharagius {g}, an
Arabic writer, says he died in the tower of Babel, it being blown down by stormy
winds; the Jewish writers say {h} he was killed by Esau for the sake of his coat,
which was Adam's, and came to oah, and from him to Ham, and so to imrod.
When he began his reign, and how long he reigned, is not certain; we have only
some fabulous accounts: according to Berosus {i}, he began to reign one hundred
and thirty one years after the flood, and reigned fifty six years, and then
disappeared, being translated by the gods: and, indeed, the authors of the
Universal History place the beginning of his reign in the year of the flood one
hundred and thirty one, and thirty years after the dispersion at Babylon {k};
and who relate, that the eastern writers speak of his reign as very long: a Persian
writer gives his name a Persian derivation, as if it was emurd, that is,
"immortal," on account of his long reign of above one hundred and fifty years:

and some of the Mahometan historians say he reigned in Al-Sowad, that is, the
"black country," four hundred years {l}.
CALVI
10. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel . Moses here designates the seat
of imrod’s empire. He also declares that four cities were subject to him; it is
however uncertain whether he was the founder of them, or had thence expelled
their rightful lords. And although mention is elsewhere made of Calneh, 314 yet
Babylon was the most celebrated of all. I do not however think that it was of
such wide extent, or of such magnificent structure, as the profane historians
relate. But since the region was among the first and most fruitful, it is possible
that the convenience of the situation would afterwards invite others to enlarge
the city. Wherefore Aristotle, in his Politics , taking it out of the rank of cities,
compares it to a province. Hence it has arisen, that many declare it to have been
the work of Semiramis, by whom others say that it was not built but only
adorned and joined together by bridges. The land of Shinar is added as a note of
discrimination, because there was also another Babylon in Egypt, which is now
called Cairo. 315 But it is asked, how was imrod the tyrant of Babylon, when
Moses in the following chapter, Genesis 11:1 subjoins, that a tower was begun
there, which obtained this name from the confusion of tongues? Some suppose
that a hysteron proteron 316 is here employed, and that what Moses is
afterwards about to relate concerning the building of the tower was prior in the
order of time. Moreover, they add, that because the building of the tower was
disastrously obstructed, their design was changed to that of building a city. But I
rather think there is a prolepsis ; and that Moses called the city by the same
name, which afterwards was imposed by a more recent event. The reason of the
conjecture is that probably, at this time, the inhabitants of that place, who had
engaged in so vast a work, were numerous. It might also happen, that imrod,
solicitous about his own fame and power, inflamed their insane desire by this
pretext, that some famous monument should be erected in which their
everlasting memory might remain. Still, since it is the custom of the Hebrews to
prosecute more diffusely, afterwards, what they had touched upon briefly, I do
not entirely reject the former opinion. 317
WESLEY, "Verse 10. The beginning of his kingdom was Babel - Some way or other,
he got into power: and so laid the foundations of a monarchy which was afterwards a
head of gold. It doth not appear that he had any right to rule by birth; but either his fitness
for government recommended him, or by power and policy he gradually advanced into
the throne. See the antiquity of civil government, and particularly that form of it which
lodges the sovereignty in a single person.
BE SO , "Genesis 10:10. The beginning of his kingdom was Babel — Some way or
other, he got into power; and so laid the foundation of a monarchy which was
afterward a head of gold. It does not appear that he had any right to rule by birth;
but either his fitness for government recommended him, or by power and policy he

gradually advanced himself to a throne. See the antiquity of civil government, and
particularly of that form of it which lodges the sovereignty in a single person.
ELLICOTT, "(10) The beginning of his kingdom.— imrod’s empire began with
the cities enumerated in this verse, and thence extended into Assyria, as is
mentioned in Genesis 10:11. First, then, he established his sovereignty “in the land
of Shinar: “that is, in Babylonia, the lower portion of Mesopotamia, as distinguished
from Assyria, the upper portion. It is called Sumir in the cuneiform inscriptions. In
Micah 5:6 Babylonia is called “the land of imrod.” His cities there were four.
Babel.—That is, Bab-ili, “the gate of God,” the literal translation in Assyrian of its
previous Accadian name, Ca-dimirra (Chald. Gen., p. 168). In Genesis 11:9 the
word is derisively derived from a Hebrew root meaning confusion, because of the
confusion of tongues there.
Erech.—“At the time of the opening of the Izdubar legends, the great city of the
south of Babylonia was Urak, called in Genesis Erech” (Chald. Gen., p. 192). It was
ravaged by Kudur-nankhunte, king of Elam, in the year B.C. 2280, according to an
inscription of Assurbanipal (B.C. 670). It lies about thirty leagues to the south-east
of Babylon, and is now called Warka. From the numerous mounds and remains of
coffins discovered there, it is supposed to have been the early burial-place of the
Assyrian kings. (See also Rawlin-son’s Ancient Monarchies, 1, pp. 18, 156.)
Accad.—This name, which was meaningless fifty years ago, is now a household
word in the mouth of Assyriologers; for in deciphering the cuneiform literature it
was found that many of the works, especially in the library of Sargon, were
translations from an extinct language; and as these were deciphered it gradually
became evident that before any inhabitants of the Semitic stock had entered
Chaldea it had been peopled by the Accadians, a black race, who had been “the
builders of its cities, the inventors of the cuneiform system of writing, and the
founders of the culture and civilisation afterwards borrowed by the Semites”
(Chald. Gen., p. 19). This Sargon, who was king of Agané, in Babylonia, about B.C.
1800. is of course a different person from the inevite Sargon mentioned in Isaiah
20:1, who also was the founder of a noble library about B.C. 721; and as the
Accadian language was already in his days passing away, this earlier or Babylonian
Sargon caused translations to be made, especially of those works in which the
Accadians had recorded their astronomical and astrological observations, and
placed them in his library at Agané. Previously also “Semitic translations of
Accadian works had been made for the library of Erech, one of the earliest seats of
Semitic power” (Ibid, p. 21). Mr. Sayce places the conquest of Shinar by the Semites
at some period two or three thousand years before the Christian era, and thus the
founding of these cities and the empire of the Accadians goes back to a still more
remote date, especially as the struggle between them and their conquerors was a
very prolonged one (Ibid, p. 20).

Calneh.—The Caino of Isaiah 10:9, where the LXX. read, “Have I not taken the
region above Babylon and Khalanné, where the tower was built?” It was thus
opposite Babylon, and the site of the tower of Babel (see Chald. Gen., p. 75, and
ote on Genesis 11:9). The other place suggested, Ctesiphon, is not in Shinar, but in
Assyria.
WHEDO , "10. The beginning of his kingdom — He was the first to build great
cities, the seats of luxury and idolatry, which have crushed the masses of mankind
by bloody despotisms, whereas the primary design of God seems to have been for
mankind to scatter themselves in smaller masses under a patriarchal government.
The four places here mentioned may not have been founded by imrod personally;
they are mentioned as the germs of the great Babylonian empire.
Babel — Babylon, whose origin is more fully described in the next chapter,
identified with the modern Babil.
Erech — The great necropolis of Babylonia, situated on the Euphrates.
Accad — A name often found by Rawlinson in the Babylonian inscriptions, the
native name of the primitive inhabitants (and language) of Babylonia, (Rawl. Her.,
1:319,) situated on the Tigris. This was the beginning of the famous empire of
Babylon.
Calneh — Ctesiphon, Sept., χαλαννη, a compound of Kal or Khal, the almost
universal Babylonian and Assyrian prefix denoting place, as Khal-asar, fort of
Asshur, Khal-nevo, temple of ebo, etc. (Rawl., Her., 1:480.) Anna is a Babylonian
name for the first god in the Chaldean triad, corresponding to the Greek Pluto, and
so Kal-neh, or χαλαννη, probably means temple of Anna. Shinar is the early Hebrew
name for the great plain afterward known as Babylonia or Chaldea, through which
flow the lower Euphrates and the Tigris; perhaps derived from sh’ne and ar,
signifying “two rivers.” The monuments and the cuneiform inscriptions of this
region, now being deciphered, show the Hamitic origin of this kingdom, and its
intimate relationship with Egypt. The Babylonian and Assyrian languages contain
strong Shemitic elements, as well as Aryan traces, which have been very baffling to
scholars; but Renan, a high authority on such a subject, concludes, from purely
philological reasons, that the basis of the Assyro-Babylonian nationality was an
Hamitic race, resembling the Egyptians; that this was succeeded by a large Shemitic
population; and that this, in turn, was dominated over by Aryan (Japhetic)
warriors. G. Rawlinson proves at length the Hamitic origin of the Chaldees (Ancient
Mon., I, iii) from tradition, language, and physical characteristics. Thus was there a
primeval fusion, as well as separation, of races on the plain of Shinar.

Babylon is often made in Scripture the type of unholy ambition, despotism, and
idolatry. It is noteworthy that the covenant people founded no vast cities or military
monarchies. Cain builds the first city; imrod founds Babylon and ineveh; the
descendants of Ishmael and Esau dwelt in cities, while the sons of Isaac and Jacob
yet dwelt in tents, confessing “that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.”
And the beginning of his kingdom. Either his first kingdom, as contrasted with his
second (Knobel), or the commencement of his sovereignty (Keil, Kalisch), or the
principal city of his empire (Rosenmüller); or all three may be legitimately
embraced in the term reshith, only it does not necessarily imply that imrod built
any of the cities mentioned. Was Babel. Babylon, "the land of imrod" (Micah 5:6),
the origin of which is described in Genesis 11:1, grew to be a great city covering an
area of 225 square reties, reached its highest glory under ebuchadnezzar (Daniel
4:30), and succumbed to the Medo-Persian power under Belshazzar (Daniel 5:31).
The remains of this great city have been discovered on the east bank of the
Euphrates near Hillah, where there is a square mound called "Babil" by the Arabs
(Rawlinson's 'Ancient Monarchies,' vol. 1. Genesis 1:1-31). And Erech. The Orchoe
of Ptolemy, identified by Rawlinson as Wurka, about eighty miles south of Babylon.
And Accad. ἀ ρχαì δ (LXX.); the city Sittace on the river Argade (Bochart); Sakada,
a town planted by Ptolemy below inus (Clericus); Accete, north of Babylon
(Knobel, Lange); identified with the ruins of iffer, to the south of Hillah (Keil);
with those of Akkerkoof, north of Hillah (Kalisch). Rawlinson does not identify the
site; George Smith regards it as "the capital of Sargon, the great city Agadi, near
the city of Sippara on the Euphrates, and north of Babylon ('Assyrian Discoveries,'
Genesis 12:1-20.). And Calneh. Calno (Isaiah 10:9); Canneh (Ezekiel 27:23);
Ctesiphon, east of the Tigris, north-east of Babylon (Jerome, Eusebius, Bochart,
Michaelis, Kalisch); identified with the ruins of iffer on the east of the Euphrates
(Rawlinson). In the land of Shinar. Babylonia, as distinguished from Assyria (Isaiah
11:11), the lower part of Mesopotamia, or Chaldaea.
11

From that land he went to Assyria, where he
built ineveh, Rehoboth Ir,[7] Calah
CLARKE
Verse 11. Out of that land went forth Asshur
The marginal reading is to be preferred here. He- imrod, went out into Assyria
and built ineveh; and hence Assyria is called the land of imrod, Micah 5:6.
Thus did this mighty hunter extend his dominions in every possible way. The
city of ineveh, the capital of Assyria, is supposed to have had its name from
inus, the son of imrod; but probably inus and imrod are the same person.
This city, which made so conspicuous a figure in the history of the world, is now
called Mossul; it is an inconsiderable place, built out of the ruins of the ancient
ineveh.
Rehoboth, and Calah,
othing certain is known concerning the situation of these places; conjecture is
endless, and it has been amply indulged by learned men in seeking for Rehoboth
in the Birtha of Ptolemy, Calah in Calachine, Resen in Larissa, .
CALVI
11. Out of that land went forth Asshur . It is credible that Asshur was one of the
posterity of Shem. And the opinion has been commonly received, that he is here
mentioned, because, when he was dwelling, in the neighborhood of imrod, he
was violently expelled thence. In this manner, Moses would mark the barbarous
ferocity of imrod. And truly these are the accustomed fruits of a greatness
which does not keep within bounds; whence has arisen the old proverb, ‘Great
kingdoms are great robberies.’ It is indeed necessary that some should preside
over others; but where ambition, and the desire of rising higher than is right, are
rampant, they not only draw with them the greatest and most numerous injuries,
but also verge closely upon the dissolution of human society. Yet I rather adopt
the opinion of those who say that Asshur is not, in this place, the name of a man,
but of a country which derived its appellation from him; and thus the sense will
be, that imrod, not content with his large and opulent kingdom, gave the reins
to his cupidity, and pushed the boundaries of his empire even into Assyria,

where he also built new cities. 318 The passage in Isaiah (Isaiah 23:13) is alone
opposed to this opinion, where he says, ‘Behold the land of the Chaldeans, the
people was not, Asshur founded it when they inhabited the deserts, and he
reduced it to ruin.’ 319 For the prophet seems to say, that cities were built by the
Assyrians in Chaldea, whereas previously, its inhabitants were wandering and
scattered as in a desert. But it may be, that the prophet speaks of other changes
of these kingdoms, which occurred afterwards. For, at the time in which the
Assyrians maintained the sovereignty, seeing that they flourished in unbounded
wealth, it is credible that Chaldea, which they had subjected to themselves was
so adorned and increased by a long peace, that it might seem to have been
founded by them. And we know, that when the Chaldeans, in their turn, seized
on the empire, Babylon was exalted on the ruins of ineveh.
GILL
Verse 11. Out of that land went forth Ashur,.... It is a question whether Ashur is
the name of a man or of a country; some take it in the latter sense, and render
the words, "and out of that land he went forth into Assyria"; so Onkelos; and in
this way go Junius and Tremellius, Piscator, Bochart, Cocceius, and others, and
the margin of our Bible, and interpret it of imrod; and the Targum of
Jonathan is express for him, which is this: "out of that land went forth imrod,
and reigned in Assyria, because he would not be in the council of the generation
of the division, and he left four cities; and the Lord gave him therefore a place
(or Assyria), and he built four other cities, ineveh, &c."
so Theophilus of Antioch says {m}, that ebroth ( imrod) built the same; but
then the generality of interpreters which take this way give another and better
reason for imrod's going out of Shinar or Babylon into Assyria than the
Targumist gives; which is, that not content with his own dominions, and willing
to enlarge them, he went out and made war upon Assyria, and seized upon it,
and built cities in it, and added them to his former ones; in favour of this sense it
is urged, that Moses is speaking of what imrod the son of Cush did, of the line
of Ham, and not of the sons of Shem, among whom Ashur was; and that it is not
probable he should introduce a passage relating to a branch of Shem, when he is
professedly writing about that of Ham; nor is it agreeable to the history to speak
of what Ashur did, before any mention of his birth, which is in Genesis 10:22 nor
was it peculiar to him to go out of the land of Shinar, since almost all were
dispersed from thence; add to which, that Assyria is called the land of imrod,
Micah 5:6 to which it may be replied, that parentheses of this sort are frequent
in Scripture, see 2 Samuel 4:4 besides, it seems appropriate enough, when
treating of imrod's dominion and power, in order to show his intolerable
tyranny, to remark, that it was such, that Ashur, a son of Shem, could not bear
it, and therefore went out from a country he had a right unto; and as for the text
in Micah 5:6 the land of imrod and the land of Assyria are manifestly
distinguished from one another: add to this, that, if imrod so early made a
conquest of Assyria, it would rather have been called by his own name than his

uncle's; and it is allowed by all that the country of Assyria had its name from
Ashur, the son of Shem; and who so likely to have founded ineveh, and other
cities, as himself? Besides these, interpreters are obliged to force the text, and
insert the particle "into," which is not in it; and the order and construction of
the words are more natural and agreeable to the original, as in our version and
others, which make Ashur the name of a man, than this, which makes it a
country: but then it is not agreed on who this Ashur was; some will have him to
be of the posterity of Ham, and a son of imrod, as Epiphanius {n} and
Chrysostom {o}; but this is not probable, nor can any proof be given of it;
Josephus {p} is express for it, that Ashur, the son of Shem, built ineveh, and
gave the name of Assyrians to those that were subject to him. The reason of his
going out from Shinar, as given by Jarchi, is, when he saw his sons hearkening to
imrod, and rebelling against the Lord, by building a tower, he went out from
them; or it may be, he was drove out by imrod by force, or he could not bear
his tyrannical government, or live where such a wicked man ruled: and as
imrod built cities and set up an empire, Ashur did the same in his own defence
and that of his posterity:
and builded ineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah. The first of these cities,
ineveh, the Greeks commonly call inus, is placed by Strabo {q} in Atyria, the
Chaldee name of Assyria, who generally suppose it had its name from inus,
whom Diodorus Siculus {r} makes the first king of the Assyrians, and to whom
he ascribes the building of this city; and who, one would think, should be Ashur,
and that inus was another name of him, or however by which he went among
the Greeks; and so this city was called after him; or rather it had its name from
the beauty of it, the word signifying a beautiful habitation, as Cocceius {s} and
Hillerus {t} give the etymology of it; or perhaps, when it was first built by him, it
had another name, but afterwards was called ineveh, from inus, who lived
many years after him, who might repair, adorn, and beautify it. It was destroyed
by the Medes and Babylonians, as foretold by ahum, and it is difficult now to
say where it stood; the place where it is supposed to have been is now called
Mosul; of which place Rauwolff {u} says, who was there in 1574, that
"there are some very good buildings and streets in it, and it is pretty large, but
very ill provided with walls and ditches;--besides this, I also saw, (says he,) just
without the town, a little hill, that was almost quite dug through, and inhabited
by poor people, where I saw them several times creep in and out as pismires in
ant hills: in this place, or thereabouts, stood formerly the potent town of
ineveh, built by Ashur, which was the metropolis of Assyria;--at this time there
is nothing of antiquities to be seen in it, save only the fort that lieth upon the hill,
and some few villages, which the inhabitants say did also belong to it in former
days. This town lieth on the confines of Armenia, in a large plain:"
See Gill on "Jon 1:2" see Gill on "Jon 3:1" see Gill on "Jon 3:2" see Gill on
"Jon 3:3" see Gill on " a 1:8" The next city, Rehoboth, signifies "streets," and
so it is rendered in the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem; and, because in the

Chaldee language streets are called "Beritha," Bochart {w} thinks that this
Rehoboth is the city which Ptolemy {x} calls Birtha, on the west of Tigris, at the
mouth of the river Lycus, though he places it by Euphrates; wherefore it should
rather be Oroba, he places at the river Tigris {y}, near to ineveh also. The last
city, Calah, or Calach, was a principal city in the country, by Ptolemy {z} called
Calacine, and by Strabo {a} Calachene, and mentioned by both along with
Adiabene, a country in Assyria.
BE SO , "Genesis 10:11. Out of that land went forth Asshur — He was the son
of Shem, Genesis 10:22 : and, it seems that, not being able to endure imrod’s
tyranny, who possessed himself of other men’s territories, (Chaldea, which
imrod had seized upon, being Shem’s part,) he went away beyond Tigris,
where he founded the empire of Assyria, whose chief city was ineveh, Isaiah
23:13.
ELLICOTT, "(11, 12) Out of that land went forth Asshur.—So the LXX.,
Syriac, and Vulg.; but the Targum and most modern authorities rightly
translate, “Out of that land he went forth into Assyria.” We have here nothing to
do with Asshur the son of Shem (see Genesis 10:22), but are occupied with
imrod and the Hamites, who, after firmly establishing themselves in Babylonia,
subsequently extended their influence northward. This is confirmed by the
cuneiform inscriptions, which prove that the southern portion of Mesopotamia
was the chief seat of the Accadians, while in Assyria they came at an early date
into collision with the Shemites, who drove them back, and ultimately
subjugated them everywhere. It is not necessary to suppose that this spread of
Hamite civilisation northward was the work of imrod personally; if done by his
successors, it would, in Biblical language, be ascribed to its prime mover.
The Assyrian cities were:—
1. ineveh.—So happily situated on the Tigris that it outstripped the more
ancient Babylon, and for centuries even held it in subjection.
2. The City Rehoboth.—Translated by some Rehoboth-Ir, but with more
probability by others, “the suburbs of the city:” that is, of ineveh, thus
denoting already the greatness of that town.
3. Calah.—A city rebuilt by Assur-natzir-pal, the father of Shalmaneser, and
interesting as one of the places where the Assyrian kings established libraries
(Chald. Gen., p. 26). The ruins are still called imroud.

4. Resen.—The “spring-head.” Of this town nothing certain is known. Canon
Rawlinson places it at Selamiyah (Anc. Mon., ), a large village half-way between
ineveh and Calah. As the vast ruins scattered throughout Mesopotamia are
those of Assyrian buildings, Resen, though “a great city” in Hamite times, might
easily pass into oblivion, if never rebuilt by the conquerors.
WHEDO , “11, 12. Went forth Asshur — Rather, [ imrod] went forth to
Asshur [Assyria.] So reads the margin, after the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan; (so Baumgarten, De Wette, A. Clarke, Delitzsch, and Knobel.) This is
certainly the meaning of the text, for the author would not here describe the
person Asshur, who is not introduced till Genesis 10:22; and besides, if Asshur
be not here a place, the locality of these four cities would not be designated in the
text at all. imrod first founded Babylon, (Genesis 10:10,) and then he (or his
descendants) ascended the Tigris valley and founded the Assyrian kingdom,
(Asshur,) whose capital city was ineveh, identified of late years with the mass
of ruins on the east bank of the Tigris, opposite Mosul.
And the city Rehoboth — This should be rendered either Rehoboth, a city, or as
a compound name, Rehoboth-Ir, so called, perhaps, from being the market
places of the city ineveh. Genesis 10:11-12 should accordingly be translated:
“From that land he went forth unto Assyria, and builded ineveh, and
Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between ineveh and Calah. This was the
great city.” As Rehoboth, Calah, and Resen have not been identified, it is very
possible that they became a part of ineveh, and the pronoun ‫,הוא‬ this, (common
version, the same,) is to be understood not of Calah, the last named city, but
ineveh, called great, because thus composed of four cities, the name ineveh
being in the first instance applied in a restricted sense to the city whose ruins lie
opposite Mosul, and then being extended to other cities along the east bank of
the Tigris, so as to embrace the whole region where are now found the ruins
called imroud, south of Mosul, Konyunjik and ebbi Yunus, opposite Mosul,
and Khorsabad, to thenorth. This is the opinion of those most eminent Assyrian
scholars, Rawlinson, Layard, and Grote, and also of Delitzsch, Knobel, and
Ewald.
COFFMA , “Verse 11
"Out of that land, he went forth into Assyria, and builded ineveh, and
Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, and Resen between ineveh and Calah (the same is the
great city)."
This extremely interesting passage explains the mystery of the great size of the
city of ineveh, which was actually a complex of the four cities: Rehoboth-Ir,
Calah, Resen, and ineveh. Thus, there is no reason whatever to deny the
statement in Jonah that it was a "city of three days' journey," thus having a

circumference of some sixty miles. The inner citadel of ineveh itself, where
modern excavations have uncovered some of the ruins, was, of course, much
smaller. Keil pointed out that the proper translation and understanding of this
passage are as follows:
Render the passage: "He built ineveh, with Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen
between ineveh and Calah, this is the great city." From this it follows that the
four places formed a large composite city.[12]
Out of that land went forth Asshur, the son of Shem (Genesis 10:22; LXX;
Vulgate, Syriac, Luther, Calvin, Michaelis, Dathe, Rosenmüller, Bohlen). i.e. the
early Assyrians retired from Babylon before their Cushite. invaders, and,
proceeding northward, founded the cities after mentioned; but the marginal
rendering seems preferable: "Out of that land went ( imrod) into Asshur," or
Assyria, the country northeast of Babylon, through which flows the Tigris, and
which had already received its name from the son of Shem (the Targums,
Drusius, Bochart, Le Clerc, De Wette, Delitzsch, Keil, Kalisch, Lange, et alii).
And builded ineveh. The capital of Assyria, opposite Mosul on the Tigris,
afterward§ became the largest and most flourishing city of the ancient world
(Jonah 3:3; Jonah 4:11), being fifty-five miles in circumference (Diod; Genesis
2:3), and is now identified with the ruins of ehbi-yunus and Kouyunjik. And
the city Rehoboth. Rehoboth-ir, literally, the streets of the city (cf. Platea, a city
in Boeotia), a town of which the site is unknown. And Calah. The mounds of
imroud (Layard and Smith), though Kalisch and Murphy prefer Kalah
Shergat (about fifty miles south of ineveh), which the former authorities
identify with Asshur, the original capital of the country.
12
and Resen, which is between ineveh and
Calah; that is the great city.

GILL
Verse 12. And Resen, between ineveh and Calah,.... This was another city built
by Ashur, situated between those two cities mentioned: the Targums of Jonathan
and Jerusalem call it Talsar, or Thalassar, see Isaiah 37:12 The conjecture of
Bochart {b} is more probable, that it is the Larissa of Xenophon, situated on the
Tigris; though Junius thinks it is either Bassora, or Belcina, which Ptolemy {c}
places on the Tigris, near ineveh:
the same is a great city: which Jarchi interprets of ineveh, called a great city,
and was indeed one, being sixty miles in circumference, Jonah 1:2 but the
construction of the words carries it to Resen, which might be the greatest city
when first built; and, if understood of Larissa, was a great city, the walls of it
being one hundred feet high, and the breadth twenty five, and the compass of it
eight miles. Benjamin of Tudela says {d}, that in his time Resen was called
Gehidagan, and was a great city, in which were 5000 Israelites; but according to
Schmidt, this refers to all the cities in a coalition, ineveh, Rehoboth, Calah, and
Resen, which all made that great city ineveh; or were a Tetrapolis, as Tripoli
was anciently three cities, built by the joint interest of the Aradians, Sidonians,
and Tyrians, as Diodorus Siculus {e} relates.
And Resen, i.e. imrod, between Kalah Shergat and Kouyunjik (Kalisch); but if
Calah be imroud, then Rosen may be Selamiyeh, a village about half way,
between ineveh and Calah, i.e. Kouyunjik and imroud, ut supra (Layard).
The same. Rosen (Kalisch), which will suit if it was imroud, whose remains
cover a parallelogram about 1800 feet in length and 900 feet in breadth; but
others apply it to ineveh with the other towns as forming one large composite
city (Knobel, Keil, Lange, Wordsworth). Is a great city. With this the record of
imrod's achievements closes. It is generally supposed that imrod flourished
either before or about the time of the building of the tower of Babel; but Prof.
Chwolsen of St. Petersburg, in his 'Ueber die Ueberreste der Altbabylonischen
Literatur,' brings the dynasty of imrod down as late as 1500 B.C; relying
principally on the evidence of an original work composed by Qut ami, a native
Babylonian, and translated by Ibnwa hachijah, a descendant of the Chaldaeans,
and assigned by Chwolsen to one of the earlier periods of Babylonian history, in
which is mentioned the name of emrod, or emroda, as the founder of a
Canaanite dynasty which ruled at Babylon. Perhaps the hardest difficulty to
explain in connection with the ordinary date assigned to imrod is the fact that
in Genesis 14:1-24; which speaks of the reigning monarchs in the Euphrates
valley, there is no account taken of ineveh and its king—a circumstance which

has been supposed to import that the founding of the capital of Assyria could not
have been anterior to the days of Abraham. But early Babylonian texts confirm
what Genesis 14:1-24. seems to imply—the fact of an Elamite conquest of
Babylonia, B.C. 2280, by Kudur-nanhundi (Kudurlagamar, the Chederlaomer of
Genesis), who carried off an image of the goddess ana from the city Erech (vide
'Assyrian Discoveries,' Genesis 12:1-20; 'Records of the Past,' vol. 3.), so that this
difficulty may be held to have disappeared before the light of archaeological
discovery. But at whatever period imrod flourished, the Biblical narrative
would lead us to anticipate a commingling of Hamitic and Shemitic tongues in
the Euphrates valley, which existing monuments confirm.
13
Mizraim was the father of the Ludites,
Anamites, Lehabites, aphtuhites,
CLARKE
Verse 13. Mizraim begat Ludim
Supposed to mean the inhabitants of the Mareotis, a canton in Egypt, for the
name Ludim is evidently the name of a people.
Anamim
According to Bochart, the people who inhabited the district about the temple of
Jupiter Ammon.
Lehabim
The Libyans, or a people who dwelt on the west of the Thebaid, and were called
Libyo-Egyptians.

aphtuhim
Even the conjectures can scarcely fix a place for these people. Bochart seems
inclined to place them in Marmarica, or among the Troglodytae.
GILL
Verse 13. And Mizraim begat Ludim,.... Mizraim was the second son of Ham, of
whom See Gill on "Ge 10:6." Ludim he is said to beget, the word being plural, is
not the name of a man, but of his posterity; and the sense is, that Mizraim begat
the father of the Ludim, whose name very probably was Lud, which name is
preserved in Isaiah 66:19. These Ludim are the same with the Lydians, Jeremiah
46:9 and whose country is called Lydia, Ezekiel 30:5 but to be distinguished
from Lydia in Asia Minor, and the Lydians there who sprung from Lud, a son of
Shem, Genesis 10:22 for, as these sprung from Mizraim, the founder of Egypt,
they must be somewhere thereabout; and Bochart {f} has proved, by various
arguments, that they are the Ethiopians in Africa, now called Abyssines, whose
country lies to the south of Egypt, a people formerly famous for archery, as Lud
and the Lydians are said to be, Isaiah 66:19 and whoever reads the accounts
Diodorus Siculus {g} gives of the Egyptians and Ethiopians, will easily discern a
likeness between them, and that the one sprung from the other; both deifying
their kings; showing a like carefulness about their funerals; both using
hieroglyphics; having the like order of priests, who used shaving; and
circumcision was common to them both, as Herodotus observes {h}:
and Ananzim, and Lehabim, and aphtuhim: the name of the father of the
Anamim very probably was Anam, though we have no account of him
elsewhere: according to Hillerus {i}, the Anamim were called so from the
pastoral life they led; and, by a transposition of letters, were the same with the
Maeonians, who inhabited that tract of land in Asia which was washed by the
river Maeonia, or Maeander, and bordered on Lydia; but, as these were the
descendants of Mizraim, they must be sought for somewhere about Egypt: much
better therefore does Mr. Broughton {k} take them to be the ubians and
umidians, which were near both Egypt and Ethiopia; though Bochart {l} seems
to be most correct, in making them to be the Ammonians, who, Herodotus says,
were a colony of the Egyptians and Ethiopians; these lived about Ammon and
asamonitis, and in that part of Lybia in which the temple of Jupiter Ammon
stood, and are the omades, that lived a pastoral life; and Bochart {m} thinks
they are called Anamim, from Anam, which, in the Arabic language, signifies a
"sheep," because they fed sheep, and lived upon them, and clothed themselves
with their skins. The word Lehabim, the name of another people from Mizraim,
signifies "flames"; and were so called, as Jarchi observes, because their faces
were like flames, see Isaiah 13:8 burnt with the heat of the sun, living near the
torrid zone; and therefore could not be the Lycians, as Hillerus {n} thinks, the
inhabitants of a country in Asia, between Caria and Pamphylia, formerly called
Lycia, now Aidimelli, which he observes abounds with places that have their

names from fire and flames, as Mount Chimaera, the cities Hephaestium, Myra,
Lemyra, Habessus, Telmessus, Balbura, and Sirbis; but these were too far from
Egypt, near which it is more probable the Lehabim were, and seem to be the
same with the Lubim, which came with Shishak out of Egypt to invade Judea, 2
Chronicles 12:3 and who were called Lybians, Jeremiah 46:9 and their country
Lybia, Ezekiel 30:5 of which Leo Africanus {a} says, that it is a desert, dry and
sandy, having neither fountains nor springs; which was near Egypt as well as
Ethiopia, with which it is joined in the above place, see Acts 2:10. The word
aphtuhim, the name of another people that sprung from Mizraim, according to
Hillerus {o}, signifies "open"; and he thinks they are the Pamphylians, who used
to admit promiscuously all into their ports and towns, which were open to all
strangers, and even robbers, for the sake of commerce; but, as these were a
people in lesser Asia, they cannot be the people here meant. Bochart {p}
observes, from Plutarch, that the Egyptians used to call the extreme parts of a
country, and abrupt places and mountains adjoining to the sea, epthys, the
same with ephthuah; and therefore he is of opinion, that these aphtuhim
dwelt on the shores of the Mediterranean sea, near Egypt, in Marmorica; not far
from whence was the temple of Aptuchus, mentioned by Ptolemy {q}, and placed
by him in Cyrene, which carries in it some trace of the name of aphtuhim; and
he suspects that eptune had his name from hence; he being a Lybian god, as
Herodotus {r} says; for none ever used his name before the Lybians, who always
honoured him as a god: and it may be observed, from Strabo {s}, that many of
the temples of eptune were on the sea shore. Some place these people about
Memphis, the name of which was oph,
Isaiah 19:13 but perhaps it may be much better to place them in the country of
epate, between Syene and Meroc, where Candace, queen of Ethiopia, had her
royal palace in the times of Strabo {t}.
ELLICOTT, "(13, 14) “With Mizraim are connected seven inferior African
races, the names of which are given in the plural, namely:—
1. The Ludim.—There were two races of this name: one Semitic, descended from
Lud, the son of Shem (Genesis 10:22), and mentioned in Isaiah 66:19; the other
Hamite, and subject to the Pharaohs ( Jeremiah 46:9; Ezekiel 30:5). They seem
to have inhabited the ile valley, but their exact position is unknown.
2. The Anamim.—Knobel gives some reasons for supposing this race to have
inhabited the Delta.
3. The Lehabim.—Probably the same as the Lubim of 2 Chronicles 12:3; 2
Chronicles 16:8; Daniel 11:43; ahum 3:9. Their home was on the western side
of the Delta.

4. The aphtuhim.—Knobel explains these as “the people of Phthah, the deity
worshipped at Memphis.” If so, they were the true Egyptians, as Egypt is Kah-
Phthah, “the land of Phthah,’ or more correctly, according to Canon Cook, Ai-
Capth. (See ote on Capthorim.)
5. The Pathrusim.—People of Pathros, or Upper Egypt. According to Canon
Cook, Pa-t-res means “the land of the south.”
6. The Casluhim.—Probably the people of Cassiotis, a mountainous district to
the east of Pelusium.
7. The Philistim.—The word Philistine means emigrant, and is translated alien,
foreigner, by the LXX·We are here told that they came into Palestine as colonists
from the Casluhim; but in Jeremiah 47:4, Amos 9:7, they are described as a
colony from Caphtor. Probably the first Philistine settlers in Gerar (Genesis
26:1), and in the towns conquered by Judah (Judges 1:18), were Casluchians;
but afterwards, at the time when they struggled with Israel for empire, in the
days of Samson, Eli, and Saul, there had been a second and larger immigration
from Crete. As they seem to have spoken a Semitic tongue, they had apparently
adopted the language of the Canaanites among whom they had settled, and
especially of the Avim (Deuteronomy 2:23). The objection to their being of
Egyptian origin, brought from their neglect of the rite of circumcision, has but
little weight. The Israelites all but discontinued it (Joshua 5:5), and colonists
escaped from the dominion of the priests might gladly dispense with such a
custom. There is also much reason for believing that the institution of
circumcision in Egypt was of a date subsequent to this emigration.
8. The Caphtorim are generally connected with Crete, but Egyptologers derive
the name from Kah-Phthah, “the land of Phthah.” According to this, the
Caphtorim, like the aphtuhim, would have been true Egyptians, and the Delta,
with Memphis, for their capital, would have been their original home. The need
of expansion, joined to the seafaring habits learnt on the shores of the Delta, may
easily have led them to colonise Crete, while others of the race were going as
settlers into Palestine. It is worth notice that while Cyprus and Rhodes are given
to the sons of Javan (Genesis 10:4), no mention is there made of Crete.
It is plain from this survey that Mizraim at this time was not of very great
extent, these seven tribes being confined to the lands closely bordering on the
Delta and the upper part of the ile valley. There is nothing to indicate that the
great city of Thebes had as yet come into existence.
WHEDO , “13. Mizraim — The descendants of Mizraim formed the Egyptian

nations. Comp. note on Genesis 10:6. The names of these seven Egyptian peoples
cannot all be with certainty identified. All these words are plurals in im.
Ludim — Must be distinguished from the Shemitic Lud. Genesis 10:22. A
warlike people of orthern Africa, associated by the prophets with the Lybyans
and Ethiopians as those who handle the bow and shield.
Isaiah 66:19; Jeremiah 46:9; Ezekiel 27:10, etc. It is possible, but not probable,
that the prophets in the above passages may refer to the Shemitic Lud. Some
(Movers) make this a Mauritanian race; others (Knobel) assign them to
ortheast Egypt.
Anamim — Inhabitants of the ile Delta.
Lehabim — Elsewhere called Lubim, Lybyans, yet not the Lybyans proper, who
descended from Phut, but the Egyptian Lybyans, dwelling west of the ile Delta.
Shishak, king of Egypt, had them in the army which he led against Jerusalem in
the days of Rehoboam, (2 Chronicles 12:3,) and ahum and Daniel associate
them with the Ethiopians.
aphtuhim — Middle Egyptians, people of Phtah, which is the name of an
Egyptian god. Memphis means the dwelling of Phtah. (Gesen., Champol.)
And Mizraim begat Ludim. An African tribe, a colony of the Egyptians, like the
next seven, which are "nomina non singulorum hominum sed populorum"
(Aben Ezra, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Kalisch, Murphy); probably referred to in
connection with Tarshish and Put (Isaiah 66:19), with Kush and Put (Jeremiah
46:9), and in connection with Put (Ezekiel 27:10; Ezekiel 30:5). Lud (Genesis
10:22) was Shemitic. And Anamim. ot elsewhere mentioned; the inhabitants of
the Delta (Knobel). And Lehabim. Lubim (2 Chronicles 12:3; Daniel 2:43;
ahum 3:9); Libyans (Daniel 11:43); probably the Libyaus west of Egypt
(Michaelis, Kalisch, Murphy). And aphtuhim. ephthys, near Pelusium; on the
Lake Sirbenis (Bochart); the Libyan town apata (Kalisch); the people of
Middle Egypt (Knobel).

14
Pathrusites, Casluhites (from whom the
Philistines came) and Caphtorites.
CLARKE
Verse 14. Pathrusim
The inhabitants of the Delta, in Egypt, according to the Chaldee paraphrase;
but, according to Bochart, the people who inhabited the Thebaid, called Pathros
in Scripture.
Casluhim
The inhabitants of Colchis; for almost all authors allow that Colchis was peopled
from Egypt.
Philistim
The people called Philistines, the constant plagues and frequent oppressors of
the Israelites, whose history may be seen at large in the books of Samuel, Kings,
Caphtorim
Inhabitants of Cyprus according to Calmet.
GILL
Verse 14. And Pathrusim,.... These are other descendants of Mizraim, the name
of whose father very probably was Pathros, from whom the country of Pathros
was called, and which is not only spoken of in Scripture along with Egypt, but as
a part of it, Isaiah 11:11 and these Pathrusim were doubtless the inhabitants of
it; which, as Bochart {u} has shown, is no other than Thebais, or the upper
Egypt. Hillerus {w} takes the word to be compounded of tap and Myowr, and
renders it the corner of the Rosians, and makes it to be the same with the bay of
Issus, where was a colony of Egypt, called Cilicians; but the former is more

probable.
And Casluhim; these also were the posterity of Mizraim, by another son of his,
from whence they had their name: according to Hillerus {x}, they are the Solymi,
a people near the Lycians and Pisidians, that came out of Egypt, and settled in
those parts; but it is much more likely that they were, as Junius {y} observes, the
inhabitants of Casiotis, a country mentioned by Ptolemy {z} in lower Egypt, at
the entrance of it, where stood Mount Casius: but Bochart {a} is of opinion that
they are the Colchi, the inhabitants of the country now called Mingrelia, and
which, though at a distance from Egypt, the ancient inhabitants came from
thence, as appears from several ancient authors of good credit, as the above
learned writer shows.
Out of whom came Philistim, or the Philistines, a people often spoken of in
Scripture: these sprung from the Casluhim, or were a branch of that people;
according to Ben Melech they sprung both from them and from the Pathrusim;
for Jarchi says they changed wives with one another, and so the Philistines
sprung from them both; or these were a colony that departed from them, and
settled elsewhere, as the Philistines did in the land of Canaan, from whence that
part of it which they inhabited was called Palestine: and, if the Casluhim dwelt
in Casiotis, at the entrance of Egypt, as before observed, they lay near the land
of Canaan, and could easily pass into it. Some think this clause refers not to
what goes before, but to what follows after,
and Caphtorim, and read the whole verse thus: "and Pathrusim, and Casluhim,
and Caphtorim, out of whom came Philistim"; that is, they came out of the
Caphtorim. What has led to such a transposition of the words in the text is Amos
9:7 "and the Philistines from Caphtor": but though they are said to he brought
from a place called Caphtor, yet did not spring from the Caphtorim: to me it
rather seems, that the two latter were brothers, and both sprung from the
Casluhim; since the words may be rendered without a parenthesis: "and
Caluhim, out of whom came Philistim and Caphtorim"; though perhaps it may
be best of all to consider the two last as the same, and the words may be read,
"out of whom came Philistim, even," or that is, "the Caphtorim"; for the
Philistines, in the times of Jeremiah, are said to be the remnant of the country of
Caphtor, Jeremiah 47:4 and as in Amos the Philistines are said to come out of
Caphtor, in Deuteronomy 2:23 they are called Caphtorim, that came out of
Caphtor, who destroyed the Avim, which dwelt in Hazerim, even unto Azzah, or
Gaza, afterwards a principal city of the Philistines: for then, and not before their
settlement in the land of Canaan, were they so called; for the word Philistim
signifies strangers, people of another country; and the Septuagint version always
so renders the word: their true original name seems to be Caphtorim. Bochart
{b} indeed will have the Caphtorim to be the Cappadocians, that dwelt near
Colchis, about Trapezunt, where he finds a place called Side, which in Greek
signifies a pomegranate, as Caphtor does in Hebrew; and so Hillerus {c} takes it

for a name of the Cappadocians, who inhabited rwh tpk "Cappath Hor," or the
side of Mount Hor, or rwth Pk, the side of Mount Taurus; and in this they both
follow the Jewish Targumists, who everywhere render Caphtorim by
Cappadocians, as the three Targums do here, and Caphtor by Cappadocia, and
as Jonathan on Deuteronomy 2:23 but then thereby they understood a people
and place in Egypt, even Damietta, the same they suppose with Pelusium; for
other Jewish writers say {d}, Caphutkia, or Cappadocia, is Caphtor, and in the
Arabic language Damietta: so Benjamin of Tudela says {e}, in two days I came to
Damietta, this is Caphtor; and it seems pretty plain that Caphtor must be some
place in Egypt, as Coptus, or some other, and that the Caphtorim, or Philistines,
were originally Egyptians, since they descended from Mizraim.
WHEDO , “14. Pathrusim — Inhabitants of Pathros, an Egyptian word
meaning southern region, (Gesenius,) Upper Egypt, Thebais.
Casluhim — Or better, Kasluchim. The word is, according to Knobel, Egyptian,
meaning dwellers in the dry (or desolate) mountain; probably Mount Casius and
the region about it. Casiotis, (the modern Cape El-Cos preserves the name,) the
sandy region of orth-east Egypt towards Philistia. From this people sprang the
Colchians, who dwelt on the east shore of the Black Sea. (Herod., 2:104.)
Out of whom came Philistim — The Philistines, so often mentioned in the Old
Testament; the Palestinians, as Philistia was the original Palestine, a name which
afterwards came to mean the same as Canaan. Amos (Amos 9:7) and Jeremiah
(Jeremiah 47:4) describe the Philistines as coming from Caphtor, (Crete;) but
this was also colonized from Egypt, so that there is no discrepancy. The
primitive Philistine colony, probably, came from Casiotis, in Egypt, and was
afterward re-enforced from Crete. Knobel (p. 215) understands this phrase to
describe the place whence the Philistines came, that is, from Casiotis, and not to
set forth their origin, translating ‫,משׁם‬ whence, and the word may certainly apply
to the country or people. Knobel believes the Philistines to have been
descendants of Shem through Lud.
Caphtorim — This name is preserved in the ancient Egyptian Coptos, whence
Copt and Coptic, the names applied to the modern Egyptians. Probably it here
refers to the island of Crete, which was colonized from Egypt. The Greek myths
of Cecrops and Danaus point to an early colonization of the Greek coasts and
cities from Egypt.
"Casluhim (whence went forth the Philistines), and Caphtorim ..." The critics go
to work on this to find some kind of a mistake in it, since in Amos 9:7, reference

is made to the Philistines having come from Caphtor. So what? They went from
BOTH places to the land of Palestine to which area they gave their name
"Palestine." The first wave of immigrants to what would become later "The
Holy Land" undoubtedly came from Casluhim, and a later group of Philistines
from Caphtor followed. There can be no excuse for the denial of this.
And Pathrusim. Pathros in Upper Egypt. And Casluhim. The Colchians, of
Egyptian origin (Bochart, Gesenius); the inhabitants of the primitive Egyptian
town Chemuis, later Panoplis (Kalisch). Out of whom came Philistim. The
Philistines on the Mediterranean from Egypt to Joppa, who had five principal
cities—Gaza, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Gath, and Ekron. They are here described as
an offshoot from Casluhim. The name has been derived from an Ethiopic root
falasa, to emigrate; hence "immigrants" or "emigrants." Jeremiah 47:4 and
Amos 9:7 trace the Philistines to the Caphtorim. Michaelis solves the difficulty
by transposing the clause to the end of the verse; Bochart by holding the
Casluhim and Caphtorim to have intermingled; Keil and Lange by the
conjecture that the original tribe the Casluhim was subsequently strengthened
by an immigration from Caphtor. Against the Egyptian origin of the Philistines
the possession of a Shemitic tongue and the non-observance of circumcision have
been urged; but the first may have been acquired from the conquered Avim
whose land they occupied (Deuteronomy 2:28), and the exodus from Egypt may
have taken place prior to the institution of the rite in question. And Caphtorim.
Cappadocia (Bochart), Syrtis Major (Clericus), Crete (Calmer, Ewald), Cyprus
(Michaelis, Rosenmüller), Coptos, Kouft or Keft, a few miles north of Thebes
(Kalisch).
15
Canaan was the father of Sidon his firstborn,[8]
and of the Hittites,

CLARKE
Verse 15. Sidon
Who probably built the city of this name, and was the father of the Sidonians.
Heth
From whom came the Hittites, so remarkable among the Canaanitish nations.
GILL
Verse 15. And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn,.... Canaan is the fourth son of
Ham; the posterity of Phut, his third son, are omitted: the firstborn of Canaan
was Sidon, from whom the city of Sidon had its name, being either built by
himself, who called it after his own name, or by some of his posterity, who called
it so in memory of their ancestor: it was a very ancient city, more ancient than
Tyre, for that was built by the Sidonians; Homer makes mention of it, but not of
Tyre: it is now called Said, as it was in the times of Benjamin of Tudela {f}.
Justin {g} says it had its name from the plenty of fish on its coasts; but, since
Canaan had a son of this name, it was no doubt so called from him.
And Heth; the father of the Hittites, who dwelt about Hebron, on the south of
the land of Canaan; for when Sarah died, the sons of Heth were in possession of
it, Genesis 23:2 of this race were the Anakim, or giants, drove out from hence by
Caleb, umbers 13:22 and these Hittites became terrible to men in later times, as
appears from 2 Kings 7:6 hence htx signifies to terrify, affright, and throw into a
consternation.
WESLEY, "Verse 15. The account of the posterity of Canaan, and the land they
possessed is more particular than of any other in this chapter, because these were the
nations that were to be subdued before Israel, and their land was to become Immanuel's
land. And by this account, it appears that the posterity of Canaan was both numerous and
rich, and very pleasantly seated, and yet Canaan was under a curse. Canaan here has a
better land than either Shem or Japheth and yet they have a better lot, for they inherit the
blessing.
BENSON, "Genesis 10:15. The account of the posterity of Canaan, and of the land they
possessed, is more particular than that of any other in this chapter; because these were the
nations that were to be subdued before Israel, and their land was to become Immanuel’s
land. And by this account it appears that the posterity of Canaan were both numerous and

rich, and very pleasantly seated; and yet Canaan was under a curse. Canaan here has a
better land than either Shem or Japheth; and yet they have a better lot, for they inherit the
blessing.
WHEDON, “15-18. Eleven Canaanitish nations are here enumerated. The first two names
are probably personal, the last nine are certainly national. The descendants of Canaan, it is
observable, are given with unusual fulness, they being the foreign tribes with whom the
Hebrews came into most immediate contact, and, therefore, the sources of information
were in this case unusually complete. The descendants of Canaan were, first, the
Phenicians; second, the Canaanites proper.
Sidon — Sidonians, Phenicians. Recent studies of Phenician monuments establish the
view, long since on other grounds entertained, that the Phenicians spoke a Shemitish
language, very closely allied to the Hebrew, if not identical with it. Thus Carthage (the
name of a Phenician colony) signifies New-Town; Barcas, Carthagenian for Hamilcar, is
the Hebrew Barak, signifying thunderbolt, a name appropriate to a military hero. The bal
of Hannibal and Hasdrubal is the Phenician and Hebrew Baal, signifying Lord. These
facts accord well with the Scripture record of Canaanitish proper names, and of the free
intercourse between the Hebrew patriarchs and the Canaanitish aborigines. Some have
insisted that the Phenicians must have been of Shemitic origin, but they show no Shemitic
peculiarities, except in language. There is much obscurity yet to be cleared up in the early
Phenician history; but the facts seem best explained by supposing a very early mingling of
Hamites and Shemites in what is now Palestine, whereby the Hamites acquired a
Shemitic language, yet retained, in a most marked manner, the leading Hamitic
peculiarities, such as sensuality and idolatry, and, as contrasted with the Shemites,
commercial enterprise. The ancient myths and the Assyrian monuments show a similar
mingling of the two races, in prehistoric times, in Mesopotamia.
Rawlinson, however, supposes that Sidon and Tyre were originally Canaanitic, but
afterwards Shemitic, the Phenicians being a Shemitic race, who immigrated into Palestine
from the shores of the Persian Gulf in about the 13th century B.C. The free and friendly
intercourse maintained between the Hebrews and the Phenicians in the days of David and
Solomon, certainly seems to separate them, in a marked manner, from the Canaanitish
tribes who were devoted so solemnly to destruction, and with whom the Hebrews were
forbidden to form any alliances. The subject can by no means be regarded as settled.
(RAWL., Her., book vii, Essay ii; Knobel, p. 305.)
Sidon, or Zidon, or Tsidon, signifies hunter, or fisher. This was the chief city of the
Phenicians, from which Tyre was colonized. It was situated on the Mediterranean shore,
where its ruins may now be seen. The Sidonians were the first navigators, being the first
to steer by the stars; they had colonies in Africa, Spain, and even in Britain. Tyre
surpassed Sidon in power and commercial splendor. The great variety and richness of the
Tyrian commerce is described by Ezekiel in lofty strains, chapters 26, 27. The name
Sidon is used by the Greeks and on the Tyrian coins, as equivalent to Phenician. There are
Phenician names along the Persian Gulf, which attest the westward movement of this
people in very ancient times. (RAWL., Her., 1:1.)

Heth — Or Cheth, ancestor of the Hittites or Chittites, who are also called sons of Heth,
Genesis 23:3, etc. They were a Canaanitish tribe, who, in the time of Abraham. occupied
the hill country about Hebron, (then called Kirjath-Arba,) and who treated the patriarch
with much kindness and hospitality, chap. 23. They afterwards spread northward, and the
name Hittite becomes synonymous with Canaanite. In the time of Solomon and of Elisha
we read of their “kings.” 1 Kings 10:29; 2 Kings 7:6.
Jebusite — A mountain tribe who dwelt in Jebus, afterwards Mount Zion, and who held
that strong fortress for centuries after the conquest of Canaan, being only finally subdued
by David. 2 Samuel 5:7.
Amorite — The most powerful and widespread of the Canaanitish tribes, and hence their
name is often equivalent to Canaanite, as in Genesis 15:16; Genesis 48:22. They founded
powerful kingdoms on both banks of the Jordan, the eastern Amorites being conquered by
Moses and the western by Joshua. Yet a remnant of this, as of other Canaanitish tribes,
survived, even in the days of Solomon. 1 Kings 9:20. It is made quite probable by Knobel
that the word Amorite is used not only of an Hamitic tribe, but also in a larger sense of a
widespread people who dwelt in Canaan before the Canaanitish occupation, and were
descended from the Shemitic Lud. The gigantic Amorites, of whom Og and Sihon were
kings, he believes to have been Shemites. (So FURST, Gesch. Bib. Lit., pp. 19, 127, etc.)
Girgasite — A tribe of whom, as Josephus says, there is left only the name.
Hivite — Or Chivite; a people who, in the time of Jacob, lived in Shechem, (Genesis
34:2,) who were also found by Joshua in Gibeon, (Joshua 11:19,) but whose chief seat at
the time of the conquest of Canaan seems to have been in North-west Palestine, about
Hermon and Lebanon. Joshua 11:3.
Arkite — This people dwelt on the Mediterranean shore north of Sidon. Their name is
still preserved in the modern Arka, famous as being the birthplace of the Emperor
Alexander Severus. Its ruins, including great columns of granite and of syenite, are
scattered about a lofty mound twelve miles north of Tripoli.
Sinite — This people seem to have left their relics in the mountain fortress of Sinna,
mentioned by Strabo, and the town of Sini, or Syn, north of Arka.
Arvadite — Inhabitants of the island Arvad or Arad, and the adjacent shore. Arvad was a
rocky island fortress, two miles from the shore, north of Arka and Sini. It was colonized
from Sidon, and was the mother of Tarsus, ranking at one time next to Tyre. It is ranked
with these renowned Phenician cities by Herodotus, (vii, 98,) by Ezekiel, (Ezekiel 27:8;
Ezekiel 27:11,) and by the historian of the Maccabees. 1 Maccabees 15:23. It is still
inhabited by a maritime population bearing the name of Ruad, and retains some well-
preserved remnants of heavy, bevelled Phenician walls.
Zemarite — This people has not, as yet, been with certainty, identified by any historical
or geographical traces. Perhaps the town of Sumra or Shoumra, at the foot of Lebanon,
between Arka and the sea, is one of the memorials of this tribe, (so Knobel,) but there is

no other proof than its vicinity to the other identified Phenician remains.
Hamathite — Or Chamathite; inhabitants of Hamath or Chamath Rabba, that is, Chamath
the Great, (Amos 6:2,) a city on the Orontes, now known by the same name, in the great
valley between Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon. This valley is known in the Old Testament as
“the entering in of Hamath,” and formed the northern boundary of the promised land. See
Numbers 13:21; 1 Kings 8:65.
COFFMAN, “Verse 15
"Canaan ..." This was the grandson of Noah whom that patriarch cursed for his despicable
behavior during the event of Noah's drunkenness, and it should be noted that none of
Canaan's posterity could be identified with the Negro race, who were actually descended
from Ham, not from Canaan. Moreover, their homeland was not primarily Africa, but
Palestine, from Sidon to Sodom and Gomorrah. They were the pre-Israelite Canaanites,
notorious for their sexual debauchery, their vile sex gods, and the licentious worship
services by which they served them. The Canaanites thus justified in their subsequent
history all that Noah had prophesied of them. Also, in this connection, it should be noted
that Noah's curse was no requirement that such debaucheries should mark the descendants
of Canaan, but that they would do so. His prophecy was not a requirement but a
prediction of what would happen. Also, that part about their being enslaved and
subjugated by other peoples likewise came true. No great power ever rose out of Palestine
until AFTER the Canaanites had been supplanted by Israel and the vast Hebrew
monarchy under Saul, David and Solomon dominated the Mid-east. On the other hand,
Canaan's brothers became world conquerors, Hammurabi probably being among the
descendants of Ham.
HE RY
Verses 15-20
Observe here, 1. The account of the posterity of Canaan, of the families and
nations that descended from him, and of the land they possessed, is more
particular than of any other in this chapter, because these were the nations that
were to be subdued before Israel, and their land was in process of time to
become the holy land, Immanuel's land; and this God had an eye to when, in the
mean time, he cast the lot of that accursed devoted race in that spot of ground
which he had selected for his own people; this Moses takes notice of, Deu. 32:8,
When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, he set the bounds
of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. 2. By this
account it appears that the posterity of Canaan were numerous, and rich, and
very pleasantly situated; and yet Canaan was under a curse, a divine curse, and
not a curse causeless. ote, Those that are under the curse of God may yet
perhaps thrive and prosper greatly in this world; for we cannot know love or

hatred, the blessing or the curse, by what is before us, but by what is within us,
Eccl. 9:1. The curse of God always works really and always terribly: but perhaps
it is a secret curse, a curse to the soul, and does not work visibly, or a slow curse,
and does not work immediately; but sinners are by it reserved for, and bound
over to, a day of wrath. Canaan here has a better land than either Shem or
Japheth, and yet they have a better lot, for they inherit the blessing.
ELLICOTT, "(15-18) Canaan.—The meaning of this name is uncertain, as, most
probably, it is a Hamitic word: if derived from a Semitic root, it may mean the
lowland. Though the Canaanites spoke a Semitic tongue at the time when we
find them in Palestine, yet the assertion of the Bible that they were Hamites is
confirmed by the testimony of profane writers, who say that their original home
was on the Indian Ocean. They had probably been driven thence by the pressure
of Semitic races, with whose language they had thus already become familiar;
and when, farther, they found a Semitic people thinly spread over Palestine, they
may, while absorbing them, have been confirmed in the use of their tongue. So,
subsequently, Abraham gave up Syriac for Hebrew; and though these are
kindred dialects, yet they are often remote enough from one another (see Genesis
31:47). On the other hand, the whole character of the Canaanite religion and
thought was Hamitic, and while they Were active in commercial pursuits, and in
culture far in advance of the Greeks, to whom they gave their alphabet, they
were intensely sensuous in their worship and voluptuous in their manners. They
are divided into eleven tribes, namely:—
1. Sidon.—This is remarkable as being the only town mentioned in the account
either of Mizraim or of Canaan. All the rest are apparently the names of tribes
still wandering about; and thus we gain a clearer idea both of the antiquity of
this early record, and also of the great advance made by imrod in founding so
many cities. Sidon, situated on the sea-shore, about thirty miles north of Tyre,
became thus early a settled community and the seat of social life, because of its
advantages for fishing (whence its name is derived), and also for commerce.
2. Heth.—The Kheta, or Hittites, a powerful race, whose language and
monuments have recently become the object of careful study. They seem
subsequently to have possessed not only Syria, but a large portion of Asia Minor.
(See ote on Genesis 23:3; Genesis 23:5.)
3. The Jebusite.—This race held the territory afterwards occupied by Benjamin,
and retained Jerusalem until the time of David (2 Samuel 5:6-9. See ote on
Genesis 14:18.)
4. The Amorite.—Or rather, Emorite, that is, mountaineer. ext to the Kheta, or
Hittites, they were the most powerful race in Palestine, holding the hill country

of Judea, where they had five kings (Joshua 10:5), and a large district on the
eastern side of the Jordan (2 Samuel 9:10).
5. The Girgasite.—Mentioned in Joshua 24:11, but otherwise unknown.
6. The Hivite.—At Sichern (Genesis 34:2), at Gibeon (Joshua 9:7), and near
Hermon and Lebanon (Joshua 11:3; Judges 3:3).
7. The Arkite.—Also in Lebanon.
8. The Sinite.—A small tribe in the same neighbourhood.
9. The Arvadite.—A more important people, inhabiting the island Aradus.
10. The Zemarite.—An obscure people, inhabiting Samyra, in Phœnicia.
11. The Hamathite whose city, Hamath, was the capital of orthern Syria. It was
situated on the river Orontes, and though called Epiphaneia by the
Macedonians, still retains its ancient name. The Kheta subsequently gained the
supremacy at Hamath, and had their capital in the immediate neighbourhood.
Afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.—This may mean
either that they spread inwards, or may refer to the numerous colonies of the
Tyrians on the Mediterranean. While in Babylonia the Hamites are described as
black, this branch was called Phœnicians, from their ruddy colour, in contrast
with the olive-coloured Semitic stock. As they came by sea from the Indian
Ocean, their earliest settlement was on the coast, and thus Sidon is called “the
first-born” of Ham. Thence they advanced into the interior, and though few in
number, absorbed by their superior culture the inhabitants of Palestine. It is
probably this expansion inwards which is here referred to.
16
Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites,

CLARKE
In the posterity of Canaan we find whole nations reckoned in the genealogy,
instead of the individuals from whom they sprang; thus the Jebusite, Amorite,
Girgasite, Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite, and Hamathite, Genesis
10:16-18, were evidently whole nations or tribes which inhabited the promised
land, and were called Canaanites from Canaan, the son of Ham, who settled
there.
Many of the enemies that Israel had to wipe out and destroy were the
descendants of Ham, who was a brother to the father of their people. All the
peoples of the Bible were brothers, but they had gone far from one another in
their worhip and loyalty to the God who saved them to repopulate the world.
CLARKE
Verse 16. The Jebusite-Amorite,
Are well known as being the ancient inhabitants of Canaan, expelled by the
children of Israel.
GILL
Verse 16. And the Jebusite,.... Who had their name from Jebus, a third son of
Canaan, and from whom Jerusalem was called Jebus, Judges 19:10 and where
his posterity continued to dwell when the land of Canaan was possessed by the
Israelites; for they were so strong and powerful, that the men of Judah could not
drive them out from thence, and here they remained until the times of David,
who dispossessed them of it, Joshua 15:63. There is an island near Spain,
formerly called Ebusus, now Ibissa, where was one of the colonies of the
Phoenicians, in which, Bochart {g} observes, the name of the Jebusites is thought
to remain.
And the Emorite; so called from Emor, the fourth son of Canaan, commonly
called the Amorite, a people so strong and mighty, that they are compared to
cedars for height, and to oaks for strength, Amos 2:9 they dwelt both on this and
the other side Jordan: Sihon, one of their kings, made war on the king of Moab,
and took all his country from him unto Arnon, umbers 21:26 and in the times
of Joshua there were several kings of the Amorites, which dwelt on the side of

Jordan westward, Joshua 5:1 hence it may be Amor, in the Arabic tongue
signifying to command, and Emir, a commander.
And the Girgasite; the same with the Gergesene in Matthew 8:28 who, in the
times of Christ, lived about Gerasa, or Gadara: a Jewish writer {h} says, that
when they left their country to Israel, being forced to it by Joshua, they went
into a country which to this day is called Gurgestan.
17
Hivites, Arkites, Sinites,
GILL
Verse 17. And the Hivite,.... These dwelt in Hermon, a part of Mount Lebanon
from Mount Baal Hermon unto the entering in of Hamath, Joshua 11:3 to the
east of the land of Canaan; hence they were sometimes called Kadmonites, or
Easterlings, Genesis 15:19 and are thought to have their name from dwelling in
holes and caves like serpents; hence Cadmus the Phoenician, and his wife
Hermonia, who seem to have their names from hence, are reported to be turned
into serpents, they being Hivites, which this word signifies, as Bochart {i}
observes.
And the Arkite; the same with the Aruceans, or Arcaeans, Josephus {k} speaks
of in Phoenicia about Sidon, and from whom the city Arce had its name, which
he places in Lebanon; and is mentioned by Menander {l} as revolting to the king
of Assyria, with Sidon and old Tyre; and which is reckoned by Ptolemy {m} a
city of Phoenicia, and placed by him near old Byblus; and hence Bothart {n}
thinks Venus had the name of Venus Architis, said by Macrobius {o} to be
worshipped by the Assyrians and Phoenicians.

And the Sinite: either the inhabitants of the wilderness of Sin, who dwelt in the
northern part of the desert of Arabia, or the Pelusiotae, as Bochart {p} thinks,
the inhabitants of Pelusium, which was called Sin, Ezekiel 30:15 the former
being its Greek name, the latter its Chaldee or Syriac name, and both signify
"clay," it being a clayey place; but Canaan or Phoenicia seems not to have
reached so far; Jerom speaks of a city not far from Arca called Sin, where rather
these people may be thought to dwell.
18
Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. Later the
Canaanite clans scattered
GILL
Verse 18. And the Arvadite,.... The inhabitants of Arvad, or Aradus, an island in
the Phoenician sea; it is mentioned with Sidon, Ezekiel 27:8 so Josephus says {q},
the Arudaeans possessed the island Aradus: it is about a league distant from the
shore; Strabo {r} says it is twenty furlongs from land, and about seven in
circumference, and is said to be built by the Sidonians; it is now, as Mr.
Maundrel {s} says, by the Turks called Ru-ad, or, as Dr. Shaw says {t}, Rou-
wadde; See Gill on "Eze 27:8."
And the Zemarite; who perhaps built and inhabited Simyra, a place mentioned
by Pliny {u}, not far from Lebanon, and along with Marathos, and Antarados,
which lay on the continent, right against the island Aradus, or Arvad, and near
the country of the Aradians. Strabo {w} makes mention of a place called
Taxymira, which Casaubon observes should be Ximyra, or Simyra; and Mela
{x} speaks of the castle of Simyra as in Phoenicia. There was a city called
Zemaraim in the tribe of Benjamin, Joshua 18:22 which Bishop Patrick suggests,
and Ainsworth before him, that Zemarus, the son of Canaan, might be the

founder of; and there is also a mountain of the same name in Mount Ephraim, 2
Chronicles 13:4.
And the Hamathite: who dwelt in Amathine, as Josephus {y}, and was in his time
called by the inhabitants Amathe; but the Macedonians called it, from one of
their race, Epiphania, which seems to have been the country called Amathite, He
removed from Jerusalem, and met them in the land of Amathis: for he gave them
no respite to enter his country. (1 Maccabees 12:25) there was another Hamath,
called Antiochia, but cannot be meant, since Hamath was the northern border of
the land of Israel, then called the entrance of Hamath, which border was pretty
near to Epiphania, but not so far as Antioch; this is the Amathus of Syria, twice
mentioned by Herodotus, as Hillerus {z} observes: but both Reland {a} and
Vitringa {b} are of opinion, that the Hamath so often mentioned in Scripture,
which doubtless had its name from the Hamathite, is neither Antiochia nor
Epiphania, but the city Emesa, or Emissa, which lay below Epiphania, upon the
Orontes, nearer Damascus and the land of Canaan; and Hamath is mentioned
with Damascus and Arpad, or Arvad, Isaiah 10:9 and, according to Ezekiel
47:16. Hamath must lie between Damascus and the Mediterranean sea.
And afterwards were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad; not only
these eleven, but two more which are not mentioned, the Canaanites properly so
called, and the Perizzites; these families at first dwelt in one place, or within
narrow limits; but, as they increased, they spread themselves further every way,
and in process of time possessed all the country from Idumea and Palestine to
the mouth of the Orontes, and which they held about seven hundred years, when
five of these families, with the two other above mentioned, were cast out of the
land for their sins, and to make way for the people of Israel.
19
and the borders of Canaan reached from Sidon
toward Gerar as far as Gaza, and then toward
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, as far
as Lasha.

GILL
Verse 19. And the border of the Canaanites was from Sidon,.... This is to be
understood, not of the Canaanites, properly so called, but of them in general;
and is a description of the bounds of the land of Canaan, as possessed by the
people of Israel: the northern or north west border of it was Sidon, see Genesis
10:15 and is to be understood of the country which reached from that city
towards the east almost as far as Jordan:
as thou comest from Gerar unto Gaza; two cities of the Philistines, well known in
Scripture, the former for being the place where Abraham and Isaac sometimes
sojourned, and the latter for Samson's exploits in it; these were the southern or
south west border of the land of Canaan:
as thou goest unto Sodom and Gomorrah, and Admah and Zeboim; four cities
destroyed by fire from heaven, as is after related in this book; these lay to the
south or south east part of the land:
even unto Lashah; which, according to the Targum of Jonathan, is Callirrhoe, a
place famous for hot waters, which run into the Dead sea, and who in this is
followed by Jerom; but since it was not in the southern part of Judea, as Lashah
was, Bochart proposes {a} Lusa, as being more likely to be the place, a city of the
Arabs, which Ptolemy {b} puts in the midway between the Mediterranean and
the Red sea; but this is objected to by Reland {c}, since the southern borders of
the land of Canaan were from the extremity of the Dead sea unto the
Mediterranean sea, from which Lusa was at a great distance: the Samaritan
version of this verse is very different from the Hebrew, and is this, "and the
border of the Canaanites was from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the
river Euphrates, and unto the hinder sea:" i.e. the western or Mediterranean.
ELLICOTT, "Verse 19-20
(19, 20) The border . . . —The boundaries given are Sidon in the north, Gerar
and Gaza in the south and south-west, and thence to the Dead Sea. The only
Lasha known is a place famous for its hot springs on the east of the Red Sea
Though the Phœnicians may-have occupied this town on their way to Palestine,
it could not have been one of their boundaries, so that it is probably some place
destroyed in the convulsion which overthrew the cities of the plain. We must

notice also that while Sidon is Aradus and Hamath were considerably above it. It
is probable, therefore, that both the Arvadite and the Hamathite were still
wandering tribes without settlements when this table was drawn up.
WHEDO , “19. The territory of the Canaanites is now described, in general
terms, as commencing at the Phenician city of Sidon and running southward to
Gerer and Gaza, cities of the Philistines, then spreading eastward to the great
plain of Siddim, which is now covered by the southern portion of the Dead Sea,
but which, at the time this narrative was written, was occupied by the cities of
Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim. This statement shows that this chapter
must have been written at least as early as the time of Abraham. The location of
Lasha is unknown, although Jerome, and others following him, identify it with
Callirhoe, north-east of the Dead Sea. But there are no remains there, and the
identification is doubtful.
20
These are the sons of Ham by their clans and
languages, in their territories and nations.
CLARKE
Verse 20. These are the sons of Ham after their families
o doubt all these were well known in the days of Moses, and for a long time
after; but at this distance, when it is considered that the political state of the
world has been undergoing almost incessant revolutions through all the
intermediate portions of time, the impossibility of fixing their residences or
marking their descendants must be evident, as both the names of the people and
the places of their residences have been changed beyond the possibility of being
recognized.

GILL
Verse 20. These are the sons of Ham,.... His sons and grandsons, which some
reckon to be thirty, others thirty one, if the Philistines are taken in:
after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, [and] in their nations:
families of the same language joined together and dwelt in the same country, See
Gill on "Ge 10:5" all Africa and a considerable part of Asia were possessed by
the four sons of Ham and their posterity; Mizraim had Egypt, and Phut all the
rest of Africa; and Cush and Canaan had a large portion in Asia.
21
Sons were also born to Shem, whose older
brother was[9] Japheth; Shem was the ancestor
of all the sons of Eber.
CLARKE
Verse 21. Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber
It is generally supposed that the Hebrews derived their name from Eber or
Heber, son of Shem; but it appears much more likely that they had it from the
circumstance of Abraham passing over (for so the word abar signifies) the river
Euphrates to come into the land of Canaan. See the history of Abraham, Genesis
14:13.
CALVI
21. Unto Shem also , the father of all the children of Eber . Moses, being about to
speak of the sons of Shem, makes a brief introduction, which he had not done in
reference to the others. or was it without reason; for since this was the race

chosen by God, he wished to sever it from other nations by some special mark.
This also is the reason why he expressly styles him the ‘father of the sons of
Eber,’ and the elder brother of Japheth. 320 For the benediction of Shem does
not descend to all his grandchildren indiscriminately, but remains in one family.
And although the grandchildren themselves of Eber declined from the true
worship of God, so that the Lord might justly have disinherited them; yet the
benediction was not extinguished, but only buried for a season, until Abraham
was called, in honor of whom this singular dignity is ascribed to the race and
name of Eber. For the same cause, mention is made of Japheth, in order that the
promise may be confirmed, ‘God shall speak gently unto Japheth, that he may
dwell in the tents of Shem.’ Shem is not here called the brother of Ham,
inasmuch as the latter was cut off from the fraternal order, and was debarred
his own right. Fraternity remained only between them and Japheth; because,
although they were separated, God had engaged that he would cause them to
return from this dissension into union. As it respects the name Eber , they who
deny it to be a proper name, but deduce it from the word which signifies to pass
over , are more than sufficiently refuted by this passage alone.
For ample information on this interesting subject, which the general plan of
Calvin’s Commentary scarcely allowed him fully to investigate, the reader
cannot do better than consult Dr. Wells’ Geography of the Old Testament, chap.
3 From certain expressiones contained in the Mosaic account here given, of the
first settlement of nations after the flood, it is clear that the records of the
chapter now before us, have reference to the state of things after the confusion of
tongues at the building of the Tower of Babel, though the narration of this event
occurs in the chapter following; for the settlements are said to be made
“according to their languages.” But we know that before the attempt to build the
tower, the whole earth was of “one language and of one speech;” and therefore
the events here placed first, in the order of narration, were subsequent in the
order of time. It may be proper here to observe, that according to the division of
the earth into three great portions, Europe, Asia, and Africa, speaking generally,
Japheth was the progenitor of the Europeans, Shem of the Asiatics, and Ham of
the Africans. Yet this line of demarcation is not intended to be accurately drawn.
The whole of Lesser Asia, for instance, falls within the province of the sons of
Japheth; and Arabia within that of the sons of Ham. — Ed.
“Hic ergo Cyclopicus est furor.”
The first relating to the sons of Japheth the elder brother, from verse 2 to verse
6; the second, to the sons of Ham, from verse 6 to verse 21; the third, to the sons
of Shem, from 21 to the end. Shem, though generally named first as a mark of
Divine favor, is here placed last, because the subsequent history of Moses
principally concerns this race; as Calvin properly argues. — Ed

Doubtless there is truth in these remarks of Calvin. Yet he seems to carry his
objection too far. For it is one of the strongest possible confirmations of the truth
of the Mosaic history, that (notwithstanding some inevitable obscurity) there
should be such a mass of undeniable evidence still existing, that the world was
really divided in the manner here described. Far more nations than Calvin
supposed may, with the highest degree of probability, be traced upward to the
progenitors whose names are here recorded. See Wells’ Geography, Mede’s
Works, and Bishop Patrick’s Commentary. A list of the names, with the
supposed corresponding nations, is also given in the Commentary of Professor
Bush on this chapter. The following extract from Hengstenberg’s ‘Egypt, and
the Books of Moses,’ also bears upon this point: — “It has often been asserted
that the genealogical table in Genesis 10. cannot be from Moses: since so
extended a knowledge of nations lies far beyond the geographical horizon of the
Mosaic age. This hypothesis must now be considered as exploded. The new
discoveries and investigations in Egypt have shown that they maintained, even
from the most ancient times, a vigorous commerce with other nations, and
sometimes with very distant nations. ...But not merely, in general, do the
investigations in Egyptian antiquities favor the belief that Moses was the author
of the account in this tenth chapter of Genesis. On the Egyptian monuments,
those especially which represent the conquests of the ancient Pharaohs over
foreign nations, ... not a few names have been found which correspond with
those contained in the chapter before us.” The learned author then proceeds to
adduce instances in proof of his position, which the reader may consult with
advantage. — See Hengstenberg’s Egypt, and the Books of Moses, chap. v2 p.
195 — Ed.
“‫ציד‬ Metaphorice cibus venatione partus, aut quovis modo paratus, praeter
panem.” — Schindler . — Ed
Some translate it, “Against the Lord;” yet, perhaps, the words will hardly bear
this rendering. — Ed.
“Qua propter dicetur,” etc., “Wherefore it shall be said” In Calvin’s text it is,
“Idcirco dicitur,” “Wherefore it is said.”
“Ob hoc exivit proverbium, Quasi emrod robustus venator eoram Domino.” —
Vulgate
Amos 6:2.
“Quam hodie Cairum vocant.” — “Babylon was a habitation formed by the
Persians, which may with probability be referred to the time of the conquest of

Egypt by Cambyses. A quarter retaining the name of Baboul or Babilon, in the
city commonly called Old Cairo, which overlooks the ile at some distance above
the Delta, shows its true position.” — D’Anville’s Ancient Geography, vol. 2 p.
152. — Ed
ὕ‫נס‬ ‫ףפוסןם‬ό‫,פוסןם‬ is when that which really comes last in the order of time, is for
some reason put first in the order of narration. — Ed
A reason why the former of these opinions is to be preferred will be found in a
note at page 313, where it is stated that the division of tongues had already taken
place, before these nations were settled. — Ed.
See the marginal reading of the English version — ‘He went out into Assyria.’
Bishop Lowth’s translation of the passage is as follows: —
“Behold the land of the Chaldeans;
This people was of no account;
(The Assyrian founded it for the inhabitants of the desert;
They raised the watch-towers, they set up the palaces thereof;)
This people hath reduced her to ruin.”
See also his note on this passage, which accords with Calvin’s supposition, that
the prophet referred to some subsequent period of history. — Ed.
In the English translation it is, ‘The brother of Japheth the elder.’ The balance
of proof seems to lie in favor of the English translation, and gives the seniority to
Japheth. Shem is supposed to be placed first, not on account of his age, but
because his was the chosen seed. — Ed.
GILL
Verse 21. Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber,.... And for the
sake of those Shem is particularly said to be the father of, is this genealogy given,
and indeed the whole book of Genesis wrote: Eber was the great-grandson of
Shem, and is here spoken of by anticipation, and Shem is called not the father of
either of his immediate sons, but of the posterity of this man; because the
Hebrews sprung from him in his line, among whom the church of God and the
true religion were preserved, and from whom the Messiah was to come, as he
did: the word Eber, Jarchi interprets, "beyond the river, Euphrates" or

"Tigris," or both, as describing the seat of the posterity of Shem; but as this too
much straitens them, since they inhabited on both sides, Dr. Hyde {d} has shown
that the word used may refer to both, to those beyond these rivers, and to those
on this side; see umbers 24:24
the brother of Japheth the elder; he was the brother of Ham too, but he is not
mentioned because of the behaviour towards his father, and because of the curse
that was upon him and his; but Shem's relation to Japheth is expressed to show
that they were alike in their disposition; and it may be to signify, that in times to
come their posterity would unite in spiritual things, which has been fulfilled
already in part, and will be more fully by the coalition of the Jews, the posterity
of Shem, and of the Gentiles, the posterity of Japheth, in the Christian church
state: and from hence we learn that Japheth was the eldest of oah's sons,
though some render the words, "the elder brother of Japheth" {e}; and so make
Shem to be the eldest; but as this is contrary to the accents, so to the history: for
oah was five hundred years old when he began to beget sons, Genesis 5:32 he
was six hundred when he went into the ark, Genesis 7:11 two years after the
flood Shem begat Arphaxad, when he was one hundred years old, and oah six
hundred and two, Genesis 11:10 so that Shem must be born when oah was five
hundred and two years old; and since he begot children, there must be one two
years older than Shem, which can be no other than Japheth, since Ham is called
his younger son, Genesis 9:24.
HE RY
Verses 21-32
Two things especially are observable in this account of the posterity of Shem:—
I. The description of Shem, v. 21. We have not only his name, Shem, which
signifies a name, but two titles to distinguish him by:—
1. He was the father of all the children of Eber. Eber was his great grandson; but
why should he be called the father of all his children, rather than of all
Arphaxad's, or Salah's, etc.? Probably because Abraham and his seed, God's
covenant-people, not only descended from Heber, but from him were called
Hebrews; ch. 14:13, Abram the Hebrew. Paul looked upon it as his privilege that
he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Phil. 3:5. Eber himself, we may suppose, was a
man eminent for religion in a time of general apostasy, and a great example of
piety to his family; and, the holy tongue being commonly called from him the
Hebrew, it is probable that he retained it in his family, in the confusion of Babel,
as a special token of God's favour to him; and from him the professors of
religion were called the children of Eber. ow, when the inspired penman would
give Shem an honourable title, he calls him the father of the Hebrews. Though

when Moses wrote this, they were a poor despised people, bond-slaves in Egypt,
yet, being God's people, it was an honour to a man to be akin to them. As Ham,
though he had many sons, is disowned by being called the father of Canaan, on
whose seed the curse was entailed (ch. 9:22), so Shem, though he had many sons,
is dignified with the title of the father of Eber, on whose seed the blessing was
entailed. ote, a family of saints is more truly honourable than a family of
nobles, Shem's holy seed than Ham's royal seed, Jacob's twelve patriarchs than
Ishmael's twelve princes, ch. 17:20. Goodness is true greatness.
2. He was the brother of Japheth the elder, by which it appears that, though
Shem is commonly put first, he was not oah's first-born, but Japheth was
older. But why should this also be put as part of Shem's title and description,
that he was the brother of Japheth, since it had been, in effect, said often before?
And was he not as much brother to Ham? Probably this was intended to signify
the union of the Gentiles with the Jews in the church. The sacred historian had
mentioned it as Shem's honour that he was the father of the Hebrews; but, lest
Japheth's seed should therefore be looked upon as for ever shut out from the
church, he here reminds us that he was the brother of Japheth, not in birth only,
but in blessing; for Japheth was to dwell in the tents of Shem. ote, (1.) Those
are brethren in the best manner that are so by grace, and that meet in the
covenant of God and in the communion of saints. (2.) God, in dispensing his
grace, does not go by seniority, but the younger sometimes gets the start of the
elder in coming into the church; so the last shall be first and the first last.
II. The reason of the name of Peleg (v. 25): Because in his days (that is, about the
time of his birth, when his name was given him), was the earth divided among
the children of men that were to inhabit it; either when oah divided it by an
orderly distribution of it, as Joshua divided the land of Canaan by lot, or when,
upon their refusal to comply with that division, God, in justice, divided them by
the confusion of tongues: whichsoever of these was the occasion, pious Heber
saw cause to perpetuate the remembrance of it in the name of his son; and justly
may our sons be called by the same name, for in our days, in another sense, is the
earth, the church, most wretchedly divided.
WESLEY, "Verse 21. Two things especially are observable in this account of the
posterity of Shem. The description of Shem, ver. 21, we have not only his name, Shem,
which signifies a name; but two titles to distinguish him by.
1. He was the father of all the children of Eber. Eber was his great grandson, but why
should he be called the father of all his children, rather than of all Arphaxad's or Salah's?
Probably because Abraham and his seed, not only descended from Hebser, but from him
were called Hebrews. Eber himself, we may suppose, was a man eminent for religion in a
time of general apostasy; and the holy tongue being commonly called from him the
Hebrew, it is probable he retained it in his family in the confusion of Babel, as a special

token of God's favour to him.
2. He was the brother of Japheth the elder; by which it appears, that though Shem be
commonly put first, yet he was not Noah's first-born, but Japheth was elder. But why
should this also be put as part of Shem's description, that he was the brother of Japheth,
since that had been said before? Probably this is intended to signify the union of the
Gentiles with the Jews in the church. He had mentioned it as Shem's honour, that he was
the father of the Hebrews; but lest Japheth's seed should therefore be looked upon as shut
out from the church, he here minds us, that he was the brother of Japheth, not in birth
only, but in blessing, for Japheth was to dwell in the tents of Shem. The reason of the
name of Peleg, ver. 25, because, in his days, (that is, about the time of his birth) was the
earth divided among the children of men that were to inhabit it; either when Noah divided
it, by an orderly distribution of it, as Joshua divided the land of Canaan by lot, or when,
upon their refusal to comply with that division, God, in justice, divided them by the
confusion of tongues.
BENSON, "Genesis 10:21. Unto Shem, &c. — The word Shem signifies a name; but two
titles are also added whereby to distinguish him: 1st, He was the father of all the children
of Eber. Eber was his great-grandson; but why should he be called the father of all his
children, rather than of all Arphaxad’s or Salah’s? Probably because Abraham and his
seed, from Eber, were called Hebrews. Eber himself, we may suppose, was a man
eminent for religion in a time of general apostacy; and the holy tongue being commonly
called from him the Hebrew, was retained in his family in the confusion of Babel, as a
special token of God’s favour to him. 2d, He is styled the brother of Japheth, perhaps to
signify the union of the Gentiles and Jews in the church.
ELLICOTT, "(21-23) shem . . . the brother of Japheth the elder.—Really, the elder
brother of Japheth. Though the rules of Hebrew grammar will admit of no other
rendering, it is remarkable that both the Syriac and the Vulg. make the same mistake as
our own version. In designating Shem as “the father of all the children of Eber,”
attention is called to the fact that the descendants of Peleg, his elder son, are omitted
from this table, and reserved for the Tôldôth Shem. (See Genesis 11:10.)
The nations descended from Shem were:—
1. Elam.—According to Mr. Sayce (Chald. Gen., p. 196), “the primitive inhabitants of
Elam were a race closely allied to the Accadians, and spread over the whole range of
country which stretched from the southern shores of the Caspian to the Persian Gulf.”
But just as the Semitic Asshur expelled a Hamite race from Assyria, so another branch of
this conquering family occupied Elymais. It is now called Chuzistan, and was the most
easternly of the countries occupied by the Semites. But see Excursus to Genesis 14 on the
conquests of the Elamite Chedorlaomer.
2. Asshur.—This Semitic stock seems to have been the first to settle on the Tigris, as the
Hamites were the first to settle on the Euphrates. Finally, as we have seen (Genesis
10:11), they conquered the whole country.

3. Arphaxad.—Heb., Arpachshad. We may dismiss the idea that he was connected with
the region called Arrapachitis, for this correctly is Aryapakshata, “the land next the
Aryans.” Really he appears as the ancestor of Eber and the Joktanite Arabs.
4. Lud.—Probably the Lydians, who, after various wanderings, settled in Asia Minor.
5. Aram.—As Asshur means plain, so Aram means highland. It was originally the name
of the Lebanon ranges, and thus Damascus is called Aram in 2 Samuel 8:5. Subsequently
the race so extended itself as to possess Mesopotamia, a lowland country, but called, as
early as Genesis 24:10, “Aram of the two rivers.” The greatness of Aram will be best seen
by examining those places in our version where Syria and Syrian are spoken of, and
which, in the Hebrew, are really Aram.
To the Aramæan stock belonged also four outlying dependencies—(1) Uz, the land of
Job, a district in the northern part of Arabia Deserta; (2) Hul and (3) Gether, regions of
which nothing is known; and (4) Mash, a desert region on the western side of the
Euphrates (Chald. Gen., p. 276).
WHEDON, “THE SHEMITIC FAMILY, Genesis 10:21-31.
21. Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the
elder, even to him were children born — That is, older than Ham, though younger than
Japheth. Comp. note on Genesis 5:32. This expression, “elder brother,” seems to be
inserted here to remind the reader that, although Shem was mentioned after Ham, he
was really older than he. Shem’s posterity is mentioned last, to form a more immediate
and natural connexion with the following history, which pertains to them exclusively.
Shem signifies name, that is, great or distinguished name; made illustrious as the line
through which God shines on the world — the line in which arose the “NAME that is
above every name.” Shem was the ancestor of the Persians, Assyrians, Arabians, and
Lydians, (perhaps also of the Phenicians, see Genesis 10:15,) all great nations of western
Asia; but he is especially conspicuous in this history as father of the “children of Eber,”
the Hebrew people, through whom came revelation and the Messiah. For the meaning of
“Hebrew,” see Genesis 10:24 and note. The names of most of these sons of Shem became
early transferred to the countries they occupied.
COFFMAN, “Verse 21
"Shem ... father of all the children of Eber ..." Eber gave his name to the Hebrews.
"Hebrew = Eberite."[13] As Willis pointed out, it is the importance of Eber as the
ancestor of the Hebrews that leads to the mention of his name at the head of the
genealogy, despite the fact of his being, not the son, but the "great-grandson of
Shem."[14]
"Shem, the elder brother of Japheth ..." There is a marginal reference in the ASV on this
place which reads "the brother of Japheth the elder." Willis and others have rejected this
as incorrect, but the definite Hebrew tradition that Shem was the youngest of Noah's
sons could be correct, as mentioned above in the quotation from Josephus. Of course,
his name usually stands first in the mention of Noah's sons, and that is supposed to

prove that Shem was the oldest. However, in this chapter, his posterity are given after
those of Japheth and Ham. The pre-eminence given to Shem in most of the references is
amply sustained by his importance as the head of the Messianic line, and is, of course,
proper regardless of whether or not he was older than his brothers. We also agree with
Aalders that, "The relative age of the sons of Noah is actually of no great
importance."[15]
22
The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad,
Lud and Aram.
CLARKE
Verse 22. Elam
From whom came the Elamites, near to the Medes, and whose chief city was
Elymais.
Asshur
Who gave his name to a vast province (afterwards a mighty empire) called
Assyria.
Arphaxad
From whom Arrapachitis in Assyria was named, according to some; or Artaxata
in Armenia, on the frontiers of Media, according to others.

Lud
The founder of the Lydians. In Asia Minor; or of the Ludim, who dwelt at the
confluence of the Euphrates and Tigris, according to Arias Montanus.
Aram.
The father of the Arameans, afterwards called Syrians.
GILL
Verse 22. The children of Shem,.... Whose names are
Elam and Ashur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram; and who, as Josephus {f}
says, inhabited Asia, from Euphrates to the Indian ocean: his first born, Elam,
was the father of the Elymaeans, from whom sprung the Persians, as the same
writer observes, and his posterity are called Elamites, Acts 2:10 their country
Elam, and is sometimes mentioned with Media, when the Persians and Medes
are intended, Isaiah 21:2 see also Isaiah 22:6, &c. in Daniel's time, Shushan, in
the province of Elam, was the seat of the kings of Persia: the country of Elymais,
so called from this man, is said by Pliny {g} to be divided from Susiane by the
river Eulaeus, and to join with Persia; and the famous city of Elymais, the
metropolis of the country, is placed by Josephus {h} in Persia. Ashur, the second
son of Shem, gives name to Assyria, a country frequently mentioned in
Scripture; and which, according to Ptolemy {i}, was bounded on the north by
part of Armenia the great, and the mountain iphates, on the west by
Mesopotamia and the river Tigris, on the south by Susiane, and on the east by
part of Media. Strabo says {k} they call Babylonia, and great part of the country
about it, Assyria, in which was inus or ineveh, the chief city of the Assyrian
empire; and which was built by Ashur, as Josephus {l} affirms, and says he gave
the name of Assyrians to his subjects: Arphaxad, the third son of Shem, from
him that part of Assyria, which lay northward next to Armenia, was called
Arphaxitis, as it is probable that was its original name, though corruptly called
by Ptolemy {m} Arrapachitis: Josephus says {n}, he gave name to the
Arphaxadaeans, whom he ruled over, now called Chaldeans; and indeed the
name of the Chaldeans may as well be derived from the latter part of
Arphaxad's name, dvk, "Chashad," as from Chesed, the son of ahor, and
brother of Abraham, as it more commonly is; since the Chaldeans were called
Chasdim before Chesed was born, and were a nation when Abraham came out
of Ur, before Chesed could be old or considerable enough to build towns and
found a nation; see Genesis 11:31 though Bochart treats this as a mere dream,
yet he is obliged to have recourse to the usual refuge, that Ur was called Ur of
the Chaldees, by anticipation. The fourth son of Shem was Lud, from whom
sprung the Lydians, a people of Asia minor, and whose country is called Lydia,
including Mysia and Caria, which all lay by the river Maeander; and Lud, in the
Phoenician language, signifies bending and crooked, as that river was, being full

of windings and turnings: some think that the posterity of Lud are carried too
far off from those of his brethren, but know not where else to fix them. From
Aram, the last son of Shem, sprung the Aramaeans, called by the Greeks
Syrians, as Josephus {o} observes; and by Homer {p} and Hesiod {q} arimoi, and
so says Strabo {r}; some by the Arimi understand the Syrians, now called
Arami; and elsewhere {s} he observes, that they who are by us called Syrians,
are by the Syrians themselves called Aramaeans, and this is the name they give
to themselves to this day: the country inhabited by them included Mesopotamia
and Syria, and particularly all those places that have the name of Aram added to
them, as Padan Aram, and Aram aharaim (which is Mesopotamia), Aram of
Damascus, Aram Zobah, Aram Maacha, and Aram Beth Rehob, Genesis 28:2
and the title of Psalm 60:1: the Septuagint version here adds, "and Cainan," but
without any authority.
WHEDO , “22. Elam — The Elymaeans who originally peopled the country
west of Persia, between it and Mesopotamia, Elymais, stretching from the
Caspian to the Persian Gulf; called Susiana by the old geographers, the Cissia of
Herodotus. It had become important and powerful in the time of Abraham,
(Genesis 14:1, etc.,) although before that time, having been overrun by a Cushite
race, it had lost its Shemitish language.
Asshur — Assyria; probably the word signifies plain, originally applied to the
plain along the east bank of the Tigris, north of Susiana, (Elam,) which was the
original seat of the great Assyrian empire. The recently discovered Assyrian
monuments show that the people originally spoke a Shemitic language, although
Aryan and Hamitic elements were afterwards mingled with it. (Furst, Gesch.
Bib. Lit., p. 9.)
Arphaxad — Ewald interprets this word fortress of the Chaldees; Furst, country
of the Chaldees, but the etymology is doubtful. Following Bochart, scholars have
usually identified this name with Arrapachitis, a region on the east bank of the
Tigris, north of the primitive Assyria and joining Armenia.
Lud — Supposed by eminent ethnologists to be the Lydians, a warlike race who
spread westward into Asia Minor, and there founded a powerful kingdom,
which was conquered by Cyrus, and swallowed up in the Medo-Persian empire.
But the undoubted Aryan (Sanskrit) derivation of certain Lydian proper names
(for example, Sardis, Candaules) makes the conclusion at least doubtful. The
matter must be regarded as yet unsettled. (Comp. Rawl., Her., i, Essay ii; Furst,
Gesch., Bib. Lit., p. 19.) The Arabic historians assign to Lud the Amalekites and
the primitive Arabs, the Joktanite (Genesis 10:26) and Ishmaelite (Genesis
25:13) Arabs being younger branches of the nation. With this Knobel coincides,
and also makes it probable that the primitive Amorites and the Philistines were

Shemitic peoples of the stock of Lud. (Volktfl., p. 198, etc.)
Aram — High land, Aramea, or Syria, especially that part north of Palestine.
Mesopotamia is the Aram of the two rivers, that is, Euphrates and Tigris — that
part of Aram which falls between these streams; so there is an Aram of
Damascus — Aram Zoba, north of Damascus, etc. It probably receives its name
from Lebanon, the conspicuous mountain chain of the region. The Shemitic
languages, Syriac and Chaldee, originated in Aram.
23
The sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether and
Meshech.[10[
CLARKE
Verse 23. Uz
Who peopled Caelosyria, and is supposed to have been the founder of Damascus.
Hul
Who peopled a part of Armenia.
Gether
Supposed by Calmet to have been the founder of the Itureans, who dwelt beyond
the Jordan, having Arabia Deserta on the east, and the Jordan on the west.
Mash.
Who inhabited mount Masius in Mesopotamia, and from whom the river
Mazeca, which has its source in that mountain, takes its name.

GILL
Verse 23. And the children of Aram,.... The four following persons are called the
sons of Shem, 1 Chronicles 1:17 being his grandsons, which is not unusual in
Scripture,
Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash: the first of these sons of Aram, Uz, is
generally thought to be the founder of Damascus; so Josephus {t} says. Usus
founded Trachonitis and Damascus, which lies between Palestine and
Coelesyria: there was a place called Uz in Idumea, Lamentations 4:21 and
another in Arabia, where Job dwelt, Job 1:1 but neither of them seems to be the
seat of this man and his posterity, who, in all probability, settled in Syria: his
second son Hul, whom Josephus {u} calls Ulus, according to him, founded
Armenia; which notion may be strengthened by observing that Cholobotene is
reckoned a part of Armenia by Stephanus {w}; which is no other than Cholbeth,
that is, the house or seat of Chol, the same with Hul; and there are several places
in Armenia, as appears from Ptolemy {x}, which begin with Chol or Col, as
Cholus, Cholua, Choluata, Cholima, Colsa, Colana, Colchis: but perhaps it may
be better to place him in Syria, in the deserts of Palmyrene, as Junius and
Grotius; since among the cities of Palmyrene, there is one called Cholle,
according to Ptolemy {y}. Gether, the third son, is made by Josephus {z} to be
the father of the Bactrians; but these were too far off to come from this man, and
were not in the lot of Shem: Bochart {a} finds the river Getri, which the Greeks
call Centrites, between Armenia and the Carduchi, whereabout, he conjectures,
might be the seat of this man; but perhaps it may be more probable, with
Grotius and Junius, to place him in Coelesyria, where are the city Gindarus of
Ptolemy {b}, and a people called Gindareni, by Pliny {c}; though Bishop Patrick
thinks it probable that Gadara, the chief city of Peraea, placed by Ptolemy {d} in
the Decapolis of Coelesyria, had its name from this man: Mr. Broughton derives
Atergate and Derceto, names of a Syrian goddess, from him, which was
worshipped at Hierapolis in Coelesyria, as Pliny says {e}. The last of the sons of
Aram, Mash, is called Meshech, in 1 Chronicles 1:17 and here the Septuagint
version calls him Masoch; his posterity are supposed to settle in Armenia, about
the mountain Masius, thought to be the same with Ararat, and which the
Armenians call Masis; perhaps the people named Moscheni, mentioned by Pliny
{f}, as dwelling near Armenia and Adiabene, might spring from this man.
24
Arphaxad was the father of[11] Shelah, and

Shelah the father of Eber.
CLARKE
Verse 24. Salah
The founder of the people of Susiana.
Eber.
See Genesis 10:21. The Septuagint add Cainan here, with one hundred and
thirty to the chronology.
GILL
Verse 24. And Arphaxad begat Salah,.... Or Shelach which signifies "a sending
forth"; that is, of waters: it is part of the name of Methuselah, given him by his
father, as prophetic of the flood, see Genesis 5:21 and Arphaxad, who was born
two years after the flood, gives this name to his first born, as commemorative of
it: according to some, from him are the Susians {g}; and in Susiana is found a
city called Sele, by Ptolemy {h}; but this seems not to be a sufficient proof:
and Salah begat Eber; from whom, Josephus {i} says, the Jews were called
Hebrews from the beginning; and which, perhaps, is as good a derivation of
their name as can be given, and seems to be confirmed by umbers 24:24 though
some derive it from Abraham's passing over the rivers in his way from Chaldea
into Syria; but be it so, why might not this name be given to Eber, as prophetic
of that passage, or of the passage of his posterity over the Euphrates into
Canaan, as well as Eber gave to his son Peleg his name, as a prediction of the
division of the earth in his time? the Septuagint version of this text inserts a
Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, but is not to be found in any Hebrew
copy, nor in the Samaritan, Syriac, and Arabic versions, nor in Josephus, see
Luke 3:36.
ELLICOTT, "(24) Arphaxad begat Salah.—Heb., Shelah. The rest of the
chapter is devoted to giving an account of the settlements of the Joktanite Arabs,
who formed only one, apparently, of the races sprung from Arphaxad, as in this
table even the Hebrews are omitted, although Eber’s birth is given with the view

of showing that the right of primogeniture belonged not to Joktan, but to Eber.
The name Arphaxad, as we have seen (Genesis 10:22), at present defies all
explanation. For the rest, see the Tôldôth Shem, Genesis 11:10-26.
COKE, "Genesis 10:24-25. Arphaxad begat Salah— Who established himself, as
there is great reason to believe, in Susiana: he begat Eber, who begat two sons,
the name of one of whom was Peleg, (division,) so called, because the earth was,
by mutual compact, divided among these descendants of oah in his days. This
division was made, it is supposed, at the time of Peleg's birth, more than one
hundred years after the flood, when there must have been great numbers upon
the earth. Though others are of opinion, that there is no need to confine it to the
time of Peleg's birth, as they think the name might be given him in a prophetic
view, as oah's and many others were; and consequently, any period of Peleg's
life (suppose when he was a hundred years old, as he lived to be two hundred
and thirty nine) may be assigned for that event; in which case there might have
been some millions upon the earth at that time; that is, suppose the division to
have been made two hundred years after the flood. And there is no reason to
suppose, that all the persons here mentioned went to the several countries they
possessed at one and the same time: the different plantations, most probably,
were made at different times, and by a gradual progression.
WHEDO , “24. The line of Arphaxad is now specially taken up, as that with
which the narrative is mainly concerned. Salah, or Shelah, from ‫,שׁלח‬ to send
forth, one sent; hence Shiloah, or Siloah, sent. John 9:7 . Eber, or Heber, from
‫,עבר‬ beyond, that is, beyond the river, (Euphrates,) an emigrant. Both of these
names seem to point to the migration of the Hebrew people from Aram
westward. The name Hebrew, ‫,עברי‬ first occurs in Genesis 14:13, in the phrase
Abram the Hebrew, and seems to be derived from the same root, meaning “one
coming from beyond,” (the river Euphrates,) that is, immigrant, pilgrim. So the
Seventy understood the word, and, therefore, translated it ο περατης, one from
beyond. (So Jerome, Theodotion, Chrysostom, Origen, Rosenmuller, Gesenius,
Furst, Knobel.) In later years the term became narrowed to those who came
from beyond the Jordan, that is, the Israelites proper, who dwelt west of the
Jordan. (Furst.) The sacred historian is supposed by many to have traced the
word Hebrew to the person Eber, making it a patronymic, in styling Shem the
“father of all the children of Eber.” Genesis 10:21 . (So Gesenius.) But he calls
the Hebrew people sons of Eber simply because the name Eber expresses their
character; they were a pilgrim people, going forth by faith to a land that was not
their own; wandering there for generations before they obtained possession, yet
believing it theirs, (Hebrews 11:8-9,) and conquering it at last by divine help.
They were owners of the land where they dwelt, not by original possession or
conquest, but by faith. The word Eber expresses this distinguishing trait of the
Hebrew people. Comp. Genesis 12:1-2. Thus were they typical of the spiritual
Israel, who are pilgrims and strangers here, but seek a heavenly country.
Hebrews 11:13-14. This is the name by which the chosen people were designated

by foreigners (see Genesis 39:14; Genesis 39:17, etc.) and by the Greek and
Roman writers until the term Jew (from Judah) came into use. They called
themselves Israelites, except when speaking of themselves to foreigners, or in
contrast with foreigners. Genesis 40:15; Exodus 1:19; Exodus 2:11; Exodus 2:13.
This trait made them a peculiar people.
25
Two sons were born to Eber: One was named
Peleg,[12] because in his time the earth was
divided; his brother was named Joktan.
CLARKE
Verse 25. Peleg
From palag, to divide, because in his days, which is supposed to be about one
hundred years after the flood, the earth was divided among the sons of oah.
Though some are of opinion that a physical division, and not a political one, is
what is intended here, viz., a separation of continents and islands from the main
land; the earthy parts having been united into one great continent previously to
the days of Peleg. This opinion appears to me the most likely, for what is said,
Genesis 10:5, is spoken by way of anticipation.
GILL
Verse 25. And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg,....
Bochart {k} thinks, that either Peleg, or one of his posterity, in memory of him,
gave the name of Phalga to a town situated on the Euphrates; though the reason

of the name, as given by Arrianus, as he himself observes, was because it divided
between the two Seleucias, as the reason of Peleg's name was;
for in his days was the earth divided; among the three sons of oah, and their
respective posterities; their language was divided, and that obliged them to
divide and separate in bodies which understood one another; hence that age, in
which was this event, was usually called by the Jews the age of division; whether
this was done about the time of his birth, and so this name was given him to
perpetuate the memory of it, or in some after part of his life, and so was given by
a spirit of prophecy, is a question: Josephus, Jarchi, and the Jewish writers,
generally go the latter way; if it was at the time of his birth, which is the sense of
many, then this affair happened in the one hundred and first year after the
flood, for in that year Peleg was born, as appears from Genesis 11:11
and his brother's name was Joktan, whom the Arabs call Cahtan, and claim him
as their parent, at least, of their principal tribes; and say he was the first that
reigned in Yaman, and put a diadem on his head {l}; and there is a city in the
territory of Mecca, about seven furlongs or a mile to the south of it, and one
station from the Red sea, called Baisath Jektan, the seat of Jektan {m}, which
manifestly retains his name; and there are a people called Catanitae, placed by
Ptolemy {n} in Arabia Felix.
BE SO , "Genesis 10:25. In his days the earth was divided — That is, about
the time of his birth it was divided among those that were to inhabit it, either
when oah made an orderly distribution of it among his descendants, as Joshua
divided the land of Canaan by lot; or when, upon their refusal to comply with
that division, God, in justice, divided them by the confusion of tongues.
ELLICOTT, "(25) Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided.—This may refer
to the breaking up of the race of Shem into separate nations, which severally
occupied a distinct region; and so, while Joktan took Arabia, and in course of
time expelled the Hamites from that country, Asshur, Aram, and Peleg occupied
the regions on the north and north-west. But as Peleg, according to the Tôldôth
Shem, was born only 101 years after the flood, oah’s family could scarcely have
multiplied in so short a time to as many as 500 people; and Mr. Cyril Graham
considers that the name refers to “the first cutting of some of those canals which
are found in such numbers between the Tigris and the Euphrates.” This is made
more probable by the fact that Peleg in Hebrew means water-course.
WHEDO , “25. Peleg — Division, relating, it is generally thought, to the
division of tongues which the narrator immediately proceeds to describe in the

next chapter, but Knobel makes it refer to the division in the family of Eber
between the brothers Peleg and Joktan. He presents reasons for the view which
seem to have weight. It is doubtful if the matter can be decisively settled, but we
follow the current opinion. Smith’s Dictionary follows Knobel.
His brother’s name was Joktan — Called in the Arabian genealogies Kahtan, the
ancestor of thirteen tribes in South Arabia. The name signifies Little. iebuhr
mentions a town and province Kahtan. Some of these thirteen names following
are still found in Arabia, others have become extinct, and others are not as yet
identified.
"Peleg, for in his day was the earth divided ..." This is one of the very interesting
lines in the chapter; and, of course, men are not agreed on what is meant by it.
The usual explanation of it is as a reference to the division about to be related in
the next chapter, the confusion of tongues. Other interpretations, of which there
are many, include:
(1) a reference to oah's formally dividing the earth among his sons, an event
traditionally assigned to a period more than a hundred years after the flood, and
(2) a reference to widespread landslips on the surface of the earth that divided
and separated the continents. All such speculations are without foundation in
proved events. The view that the division of the earth following the confusion of
tongues is most likely the true meaning.
26
Joktan was the father of Almodad, Sheleph,
Hazarmaveth, Jerah,

CLARKE
Verse 26. - 30. Joktan
He had thirteen sons who had their dwelling from Mesha unto Sephar, a mount
of the east, which places Calmet supposes to be mount Masius, on the west in
Mesopotamia, and the mountains of the Saphirs on the east in Armenia, or of the
Tapyrs farther on in Media.
In confirmation that all men have been derived from one family, let it be
observed that there are many customs and usages, both sacred and civil, which
have prevailed in all parts of the world; and that these could owe their origin to
nothing but a general institution, which could never have existed, had not
mankind been originally of the same blood, and instructed in the same common
notions before they were dispersed. Among these usages may be reckoned, 1. The
numbering by tens. 2. Their computing time by a cycle of seven days. 3. Their
setting apart the seventh day for religious purposes. 4. Their use of sacrifices,
propitiatory and eucharistical. 5. The consecration of temples and altars. 6. The
institution of sanctuaries or places of refuge, and their privileges. 7. Their giving
a tenth part of the produce of their fields, worshipping the Deity bare-footed. 9.
Abstinence of the men from all sensual gratifications previously to their offering
sacrifice. 10. The order of priesthood and its support. 11. The notion of legal
pollutions, defilements, a general deluge. 13. The universal opinion that the
rainbow was a Divine sign, or portent, Dodd. The wisdom and goodness of God
are particularly manifested in repeopling the earth by means of three persons,
all of the same family, and who had witnessed that awful display of Divine
justice in the destruction of the world by the flood, while themselves were
preserved in the ark. By this very means the true religion was propagated over
the earth; for the sons of oah would certainly teach their children, not only the
precepts delivered to their father by God himself, but also how in his justice he
had brought the flood on the world of the ungodly, and by his merciful
providence preserved them from the general ruin. It is on this ground alone that
we can account for the uniformity and universality of the above traditions, and
for the grand outlines of religious truth which are found in every quarter of the
world. God has so done his marvellous works that they may be had in
everlasting remembrance.
GILL
Verse 26. And Joktan begat Almodad,.... And twelve more mentioned later: the
Arabic writers {o} say be had thirty one sons by one woman, but all, excepting
two, left Arabia, and settled in India; the Targum of Jonathan adds, "who
measured the earth with ropes," as if he was the first inventor and practiser of
geometry: from him are thought to spring the Allumaeotae, a people whom
Ptolemy {p} places in Arabia Felix, called so by the Greeks, instead of Almodaei:

Mr. Broughton {q} sets Eldimaei over against this man's name, as if they were a
people that sprung from him; whereas this word is wrongly put in Ptolemy {r}
for Elymaeans, as it is in the Greek text, a people joining to the Persians:
[and] Sheleph and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah: to the first of these, Sheleph, the
Targum of Jonathan adds, "who drew out the water of the rivers;" his people
are supposed by Bochart {s}, to be the Alapeni of Ptolemy {t}, which should be
read Salapeni, who were, he says, more remote from the rest, almost as far as the
neck of Arabia, and not far from the spring of the river Betius. The next son,
Hazarmaveth, or Hasermoth, as in the Vulgate Latin, is thought to give name to
a people in Arabia, called by Pliny {u} Chatramotitae, and by Ptolemy
Cathramonitae, whose country, Strabo says {w}, produces myrrh; according to
Ptolemy {x} they reached from the mountain Climax to the Sabaeans, among
whom were a people, called, by Pliny {y}, Atramitae, who inhabited a place of
the same name, and which Theophrastus calls Adramyta, which comes nearer
the name of this man, and signifies the court or country of death: and in those
parts might be places so called, partly from the unwholesomeness of the air,
being thick and foggy, and partly from the frankincense which grew there,
which was fatal to those that gathered it, and therefore only the king's slaves,
and such as were condemned to die, were employed in it, as Bochart {z} has
observed from Arrianus; as also because of the multitude of serpents, with which
those odoriferous countries abounded, as the same writer relates from
Agatharcides and Pliny. The next son of Joktan is Jerah, which signifies the
moon, as Hilal does in Arabic; and Alilat with the Arabians, according to
Herodotus {a}, is "Urania," or the moon; hence Bochart {b} thinks, that the
Jeracheans, the posterity of Jerah, are the Alilaeans of Diodorus Siculus {c}, and
others, a people of the Arabs; and the Arabic geographer, as he observes, makes
mention of a people near Mecca called Bene Hilal, or the children of Jerah; and
he is of opinion that the island Hieracon, which the Greeks call the island of the
Hawks placed by Ptolemy {d}, in Arabia Felix, adjoining to the country which
lies upon the Arabian Gulf, is no other than the island of the Jeracheans, the
posterity of this man: the Arabs {e} speak of a son of Joktan or Cahtan, they call
Jareb, who succeeded his father, which perhaps may be a corruption of Jerah;
and another, called by them Jorham.
ELLICOTT, "(26-31) Joktan.—“The little one,” as being a younger son. Of the
thirteen divisions of his family, few are of any importance, though several of the
names are curious from their connection with the Arabic language. The
Joktanite country was Arabia Felix, or Yemen, and as the people led a pastoral
life without founding cities, the traces of their tribal names are insignificant.
Those worth noting are Almodad, because it has the full form of the article,
retained as Al in Arabic, but shortened in Hebrew into Ha. Hazarmaveth, “the
court of death,” so called because of the unhealthiness of its climate, is now
Hadramaut. Abimael means “the father of Mael.” While in Hebrew and Syriac
men took the name of their father, in Arabic they often take the name of a son,

with Abu or Abi (“father of”) prefixed. Sheba, the region afterwards famous for
its commerce and its wealth of spices and precious stones. A Sheba also occurs
among the race of Ham (see Genesis 10:7). Opbir: the name, probably, at first of
a district of Oman in Arabia, but afterwards given to some port in India or
Ceylon, from some fancied similarity. Havilah: some commentators consider that
this is the same district as that previously occupied by the Cushites (Genesis
10:7); others argue that the two Havilahs are distinct, and that this is the region
called Chawlân, in orthern Yemen. It is, however, certain that the Hamites
possessed this country prior to its being occupied by the Joktanites.
WHEDO , “26. Almodad — This name seems to be preserved in the Arabic El-
Mudad, or Al-Modhadh, a famous Arab prince. The name was borne by several
Arab chiefs in a tribe that lived first in Yemen, (South-west Arabia,) and then in
Hedjaz, (along the upper Red Sea.)
Sheleph — Probably Salif, or Sulaf, the Salapani of Ptolemy, an Arab people of
Yemen.
Hazarmaveth — Court of death. The modern Hadhramant, or Hadramant, east
of Yemen, in south Arabia, on the Indian Ocean; so named for its unhealthy
climate. The modern name has the same meaning. This identification is
undisputed.
Jerah — The moon. Michaelis and Gesenius understand this to designate what
are now called the Moon Coast and the Moon Mountain, near Hadhramant.
PULPIT, “Genesis 10:26-30
And Joktan begat Almodad. Usually said to be Yemen. And Sheleph. The
Salapenoi of Ptolemy, belonging to the interior of Arabia. And Hazarmaveth.
Hadramaut, southeast of Arabia (Bochart, Michaelis). And Jerah. Contiguous to
Hadramaut. And Hadoram. Adramitae of Ptolemy, or the Atramitae of Pliny
(Bochart) And Uzal. Awzal, the capital of Yemen (Bochart). And Diklah. The
palm-bearing region of Arabia Felix (Bochart); a tribe between the mouth of the
Tiber and the Persian Gulf (Michaelis). And Obal, and Abimael, whose
settlements are not known. And Sheba. Vide supra, Genesis 10:7. And Ophir. In
Arabia; probably in Oman, on the Persian Gulf (Michaelis, Rosenmüller,
Kalisch, Keil), though it has also been located in India (Josephus, Vitringa,
Gesenius, Delitzsch). The gold of Ophir celebrated (1 Kings 9:27, 1 Kings 9:28; 2
Chronicles 9:10, 2 Chronicles 9:13, 2 Chronicles 9:21). And Havilah. The
Chaulan in Arabia Felix, but vide supra, Genesis 10:7. And Jobab. The
Jobabitae of Ptolemy, near the Indian Sea (Michaelis, Rosenmüller); but more
probably a tribe in Arabia Deserta if Jobab—Arabic jebab, a desert (Bochart,

Gesenius, Kalisch). All these were the sons of Joktan. And their dwelling was
from Mesha. The seaport of Muza (Bochart); Messene, at the mouth of the Tigris
(Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Kalisch). As thou goest into Zephar. Zafar or Dhafari,
on the coast of the Hadramut. The difficulty of identifying a seaport town with a
mountain is got over (Kalisch) by reading "to the" instead of a mount of the
east—the thunderous range of hills in the vicinity.
27
Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah,
GILL
Verse 27. And Hadoram, and Uzal, and Diklah. The posterity of Hadoram, from
the likeness of the name and sound, might seem to be the Adramitae of Ptolemy
{f}, but Bochart {g} thinks they are the Drimati of Pliny {h}, who dwelt in the
extreme corner of Arabia, to the east, near the Macae, who were at the straits of
the Persian Gulf; and he observes, that the extreme promontory of that country
was called Corodamum, by transposition of the letters "D" and "R": Uzal gave
name to a city which is still so called; for R. Zacuth {i} says, the Jews which
dwelt in Yaman, the kingdom of Sheba, call Samea, which is the capital of the
kingdom of Yaman, Uzal; and who also relates, that there is a place called
Hazarmaveth unto this day, of which see Genesis 10:26 the kingdom in which
Uzal is said by him to be was the south part of Arabia Felix, as Yaman signifies,
from whence came the queen of the south, Matthew 12:42 and Uzal or Auzal, as
the Arabs pronounce it, is the same the Greeks call Ausar, changing "L" into
"R"; hence mention is made by Pliny {k} of myrrh of Ausar, in the kingdom of
the Gebanites, a people of the Arabs, where was a port by him called Ocila {l},
by Ptolemy, Ocelis {m}, and by Artemidorus in Strabo, Acila {n}, and perhaps
was the port of the city Uzal, to the name of which it bears some resemblance:
Diklah signifies a palm tree, in the Chaldee or Syriac language, with which kind
of trees Arabia abounded, especially the country of the Minaei, as Pliny {o}
relates; wherefore Bochart {p} thinks the posterity of Diklah had their seat
among them, rather than at Phaenicon or Diklah, so called from the abundance
of palm trees that grew there, which was at the entrance into Arabia Felix at the

Red sea, of which Diodorus Siculus {q} makes mention; and so Artemidorus in
Strabo {r} speaks of a place called Posidium, opposite to the Troglodytes, and
where the Arabian Gulf ends, where palm trees grew in a wonderful manner, on
the fruit of which people lived, where was a Phaenicon, or continued grove of
palm trees; and here is placed by Ptolemy {s} a village called Phaenicon, the
same with Diklah.
28
Obal, Abimael, Sheba,
GILL
Verse 28. And Obal, and Abimael, and Sheba. The first of these, Obal, or Aubal,
as the Arabs pronounce, Bochart {t} is obliged to make his posterity pass over
the straits of the Arabian Gulf out of Arabia Felix into Arabia Troglodytice;
where he finds a bay, called by Pliny {u} the Abalite bay, which carries in it
some trace of this man's name, and by Ptolemy {v} the Avalite bay; and where
was not only an emporium of this name, but a people called Avalites and also
Adulites, which Bishop Patrick believes should be read "Abulites," more
agreeably to the name of this man, but Pliny {w} speaks of a town of the Adulites
also: Abimael is supposed by Bochart {x} to be the father of Mali, or the Malitae,
as his name may be thought to signify, Theophrastus {y} making mention of a
place called Mali along with Saba, Adramyta, and Citibaena, in spicy Arabia,
which is the only foundation there is for this conjecture: Sheba gave name to the
Sabaeans, a numerous people in Arabia; their country was famous for
frankincense; the nations of them, according to Pliny {z}, reached both seas, that
is, extended from the Arabian to the Persian Gulf; one part of them, as he says
{a}, was called Atramitae, and the capital of their kingdom Sabota, on a high
mountain, eight mansions from which was their frankincense country, called
Saba; elsewhere he says {b}, their capital was called Sobotale, including sixty
temples within its walls; but the royal seat was Mariabe; and so Eratosthenes in
Strabo {c} says, the metropolis of the Sabaeans was Mariaba, or, as others call it,
Merab, and which, it seems, is the same with Saba; for Diodorus Siculus {d} and

Philostorgius {e} say, the metropolis of the Sabaeans is Saba; and which the
former represents as built on a mountain, as the Sabota of Pliny is said to be,
29
Ophir, Havilah and Jobab. All these were sons
of Joktan.
GILL
Verse 29. And Ophir, and Havilah, and Jobab,.... If several of the sons of Joktan
went into India, as the Arabs say, one would be tempted to think that Ophir in
India, whither Solomon sent his ships once in three years, had its name from the
first of these; See Gill on "Ge 10:26" but as this would be carrying him too far
from the rest of his brethren, who appear to have settled in Arabia, some place
must be found for him there; and yet there is none in which there is any likeness
of the name, unless Coper can be thought to be, a village in the country of the
Cinaedocolpites, on the Arabian Gulf, as in Ptolemy {f}, or Ogyris, an island in
the same sea, Pliny {g} makes mention of the same with the Organa of Ptolemy
{h}, placed by him on the Sachalite bay; wherefore Bochart {i} looks out
elsewhere for a seat for this Ophir, or "Oupheir," as in the Septuagint version,
and finding in a fragment of Eupolemus, preserved by Eusebius {k}, mention
made of the island of Ourphe, which he thinks should be Ouphre, or Uphre,
situated in the Red sea, seems willing to have it to be the seat of this man and his
posterity, and that it had its name from him; or that their seat was among the
Cassanites or Gassandae, the same perhaps with the tribe of Ghassan, Aupher
and Chasan signifying much the same, even great abundance and treasure:
Havilah, next mentioned, is different from Havilah, the son of Cush, Genesis
10:7 and so his country; but it is difficult where to fix him; one would rather
think that the Avalite bay, emporium, and people, should take their name from
him than from Obal, Genesis 10:28 but Bochart {l} chooses to place him and his
posterity in Chaulan, a country in Arabia Felix, in the extreme part of
Cassanitis, near the Sabaeans: and Jobab, the last of Joktan's sons, was the

father of the Jobabites, called by Ptolemy {m} Jobarites, corruptly for Jobabites,
as Salmasius and Bochart think; and who are placed by the above geographer
near the Sachalites in Arabia Felix, whose country was full of deserts, as Jobab
in Arabic signifies, so Bochart {n} observes, as the countries above the Sachalite
bay were, by which these Jobabites are placed:
all these were the sons of Joktan; the thirteen before mentioned, all which had
their dwelling in Arabia or near it, and which is further described in the
following verse.
"Ophir ..." This was a famous name among the Jews, for it was to Ophir that
Solomon's great triennial navy traveled to bring gold for the decoration of the
temple. Strangely enough, we cannot tell exactly where it was located. Whitelaw
located it "probably at Oman on the coast of Arabia,"[17] and Josephus,
Delitzsch, and others have thought it must be identified with some coastal city in
India. It is not really known.
CO CLUSIO
The human family must not ignore this chapter. It teaches the oneness of all
mankind, that we are all the children of the same parents, that we are therefore
brothers and sisters each to all, and that we should compel our attitudes and
behavior to conform to such a profound truth. Medical science in the current era
has added a vital, living proof of the truth of all this, in that there is no
distinction whatever among the races as to the types of blood, persons of any
race being able to provide the material for a blood transfusion to persons of any
other race.
Since then, we ARE brothers, why should we not behave like brothers? Why the
hatreds, prejudices, animosities, fears, proscriptions, and intrigues that feed the
fires of the world's savage and unreasonable conflicts? May God help humanity
to find again the secret of their lost brotherhood! Indeed, that is what Jesus
came to do, to build of all men, one new man "in Christ." We must add that no
other device for achieving such a desirable end has ever been dreamed of. Only
"in the Lord Jesus Christ" can any real brotherhood of mankind ever reach the
fruition sought. May God help all people to find it and to know the joy of
receiving every man as his brother "in the Lord"!

30
The region where they lived stretched from
Mesha toward Sephar, in the eastern hill
country.
GILL
Verse 30. And their dwelling was from Mesha, as thou goest unto Zephar, a
mount of the east. Mesha, which is thought to be the Muza of Ptolemy and Pliny,
was a famous port in the Red sea, frequented by the merchants of Egypt and
Ethiopia, from which the Sappharites lay directly eastward; to whose country
they used to go for myrrh and frankincense, and the like, of which Saphar was
the metropolis, and which was at the foot of Climax, a range of mountains,
which perhaps might be formerly called Saphar, from the city at the bottom of
it, the same with Zephar here: by inspecting Ptolemy's tables {o}, the way from
one to the other is easily discerned, where you first meet with Muza, a port in the
Red sea, then Ocelis, then the mart Arabia, then Cane, and so on to Sapphar or
Sapphara; and so Pliny says {p}, there is a third port which is called Muza,
which the navigation to India does not put into, only the merchants of
frankincense and Arabian odours: the towns in the inland are the royal seat
Saphar; and another called Sabe; now the sons of Joktan had their habitations
all from this part in the west unto Zephar or Saphar eastward, and those were
reckoned the genuine Arabs: Hillerus {q} gives a different account of the
situation of the children of Joktan, as he thinks, agreeably to these words of
Moses; understanding by Kedem, rendered the east, the mountains of Kedem, or
the Kedemites, which sprung from Kedem or Kedomah, the youngest son of
Ishmael, Genesis 25:15 and Zephar, the seat of the Sepharites, as between Mesha
and Kedem; for, says he, Mesha is not Muza, a mart of the Red sea, but Moscha,
a famous port of the Indian sea, of which Arrian and Ptolemy make mention;
and from hence the dwelling of the Joktanites was extended, in the way you go
through the Sepharites to the mountainous places of Kedem or Cadmus: perhaps
nearer the truth may be the Arabic paraphrase of Saadiah {r}, which is "from
Mecca till you come to the city of the eastern mountain, or (as in a manuscript)
to the eastern city,"

meaning perhaps Medina, situate to the east; so that the sense is, according to
this paraphrase, that the sons of Joktan had their dwelling from Mecca to
Medina; and so R. Zacuth {s} says, Mesha in the Arabic tongue is called Mecca;
and it is a point agreed upon by the Arabs that Mesha was one of the most
ancient names of Mecca; they believe that all the mountainous part of the region
producing frankincense went in the earliest times by the name of Sephar; from
whence Golius concludes this tract to be the Mount Zephar of Moses, a strong
presumption of the truth of which is that Dhafar, the same with the modern
Arabs as the ancient Saphar, is the name of a town in Shihr, the only province in
Arabia bearing frankincense on the coast of the Indian ocean {t}.
WHEDO , “30. Their dwelling was from Mesha — In this verse are given the
boundaries of the Joktanite Arabs, probably as they existed in the time of
Abraham. But it is now impossible to follow them with any degree of certainty.
Yet, in the language and monuments of South Arabia there are, as shown above,
abundant traces of these thirteen Joktanite tribes. The position of Mesha is
uncertain, but it was probably located in orth-west Yemen, and the seaport
Mousa, on the Red Sea, may be its modern representative. Sepher is
undoubtedly the modern Zafar, Dafar, Dhafari, a seaport beneath a lofty
mountain on the shore of the Indian Ocean, in Hadhramant, an ancient mart of
the Indian trade. These boundaries would fix the primitive seat of the Joktanite
Arabs in Yemen and Hadhramant, mostly in Arabia Felix — a district stretching
from the ikkum mountains to the Red and Arabian Seas.
31
These are the sons of Shem by their clans and
languages, in their territories and nations.
GILL, "Verse 31. These are the sons of Shem,.... His sons, and grandsons, and great

grandsons, in all twenty six, no doubt but there were many more, but these are only
mentioned; for none of the sons of Elam, Ashur, and Lud, are named, and but one
of Arphaxad's, and one of Salah's, and two of Eber's, and none of Peleg's; when it is
not to be questioned but they had many, as is certain of Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, and
Peleg, Genesis 11:13
after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations: from
hence sprung various families at first, and these of different languages upon the
confusion of Babel, which thenceforward formed different nations, dwelt in
different lands; which have been pointed at as near as we can at this distance, and
with the little helps and advantages we have: it seems from hence that Shem's
posterity were of different languages as well as those of Ham and Japheth.
BAR ES, "Gen_10:31-32
Gen_10:31 contains the usual closing formula for the pedigree of the Shemite tribes;
and Gen_10:32 contains the corresponding form for the whole table of nations.
From a review of these lands it is evident that Shem occupied a much smaller extent of
territory than either of his brothers. The mountains beyond the Tigris, the Persian Gulf,
the Red Sea, the Levant, the Archipelago, and the Black Sea, bound the countries that
were in part peopled by Shem. Arabia, Syria, and Assyria contained the great bulk of the
Shemites, intermingled with some of the Hamites. The Kushites, Kenaanites, and
Philistines trench upon their ground. The rest of the Hamites peopled Africa, and such
countries as were supplied from it. The Japhethites spread over all the rest of the world.
In this table there are 70 names, exclusive of Nimrod, of heads of families, tribes, or
nations descended from the 3 sons of Noah - 14 from Japheth, 30 from Ham, and 26
from Shem. Among the heads of tribes descended from Japheth are 7 grandsons. Among
those from Ham are 23 grandsons and 3 great-grandsons. Among those of Shem are 5
grandsons, one great-grandson, 2 of the fourth generation, and 13 of the fifth. Whence, it
appears that the subdivisions are traced further in Ham and much further in Shem than
in Japheth, and that they are pursued only in those lines which are of importance for the
coming events in the history of Shem.
It is to be observed, also, that, though the different races are distinguished by the
diversity of tongues, yet the different languages are much less numerous than the tribes.
The eleven tribes of Kenaanites, and the thirteen tribes of Joctanites, making allowance
for some tribal peculiarities, most probably spoke at first only two dialects of one family
of languages, which we have designated the Hebrew, itself a branch of, if not identical
with, what is commonly called the Shemitic. Hence, some Hamites spoke the language of
Shem. A similar community of language may have occurred in some other instances of
diversity of descent.
COKE, "Genesis 10:31. After their families, &c.— In Genesis 10:5 also it is said,
that they were divided, after their tongues, families, and nations; whence it seems
to follow, that they were first ranged according to their nations, and then every
nation was ranged after its families; so that every nation dwelt, and had its lot, by
itself; and in every nation the families also dwelt, and had their lots, by
themselves: for the true import of this, and the like texts, seems to be, that the
land or peculiar lot of each family lay within the general lot of each nation.
"Whence may be inferred," as the learned J. Mede observes, "that this great

division of the earth was performed orderly, and was not a confused or irregular
dispersion, wherein every one went where he listed, and settled himself where he
liked best." After this chapter, let us remark, that such genealogies are of singular
advantage to confirm the truth of the Mosaic history, by giving an account of the
succession of mankind from the creation to the flood, and from the flood to his
own time, shewing from whom all nations were derived, and how they came to be
dispersed. Besides, as Mr. Shuckford observes, it is by tracing these genealogies,
that we come to know how exactly the predictions in the former chapter, relating
to the sons of Noah, were fulfilled. The change of names and countries, with other
revolutions, must indeed occasion some uncertainty in disquisitions of so great
antiquity: yet the reader, who enters accurately into them, will find them
supported by arguments much more favourable, than one who never considered
the subject would expect to meet with, for a fact that happened so long ago, and
which is but imperfectly described by the earliest writers. We may add, that
antiquity gives in its evidence very strongly to the original of the nations here
mentioned, while the Mosaic account should be particularly valued, as affording
us the only clue in this intricate subject.
32
These are the clans of oah's sons, according to
their lines of descent, within their nations. From
these the nations spread out over the earth after
the flood.
GILL, Verse 32. These are the families of the sons of oah, after their generations,
in their nations,.... This is the account of their families, from whom the several
nations of the earth sprung: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after
the flood; not immediately, not till they were so increased as to form distinct
nations; not till Peleg's time, when the division was made; not until the building of

the city and tower of Babel, for unto that time these families were together, and then
and not before were they dispersed abroad upon the face of the earth; and by
degrees peopled all the known parts of the world, Asia, Africa, and Europe, and no
doubt America, though the way of their passage thither is unknown to us; and to
this partition of the earth by the three sons of oah, Pindar {u} seems to have
respect, when he says, "according to the ancients, Jupiter and the immortal ones
parted the earth;" and he speaks of one man having three sons, who dwelt separate,
the earth being divided into three parts.
HAWKER, "REFLECTIONS
How graciously hath God watched over the promised seed, in the family of Shem, and so
particularly marked down the descendants of the chosen race, from whom, after the
flesh, that Holy Thing (as he is emphatically called in his own word) was to spring,
Christ in the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. And how graciously hath God
been pleased to note the features of his people in every age, by that uniform mark, by
which they are known, of a poor and afflicted people. While the posterity of Ham, are
said to be the Nimrod’s of the earth; the offspring of Shem, with whom the blessing was
deposited, is among the bond-slaves in Egypt. Let this teach us, how much better it is to
be poor and humble, while belonging to the household of faith, than, void of faith, to be
found related even to nobles.
JAMISON, "These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their
generations, in their nations, etc. — This division was made in the most orderly
manner; and the inspired historian evidently intimates that the sons of Noah were
ranged according to their nations, and every nation ranked by its families, so that every
nation had its assigned territory, and in every nation the tribes, and in every tribe the
families, were located by themselves.
K&D, "The words, “And by these were the nations of the earth divided in the earth
after the flood,” prepare the way for the description of that event which led to the
division of the one race into many nations with different languages.
SBC, "This is the summing up of the Scriptural account of the second spreading of the
human race through the earth, after it had been laid bare by the Deluge, just as the
fourth and fifth chapters of Genesis give the history of the first increase from Adam and
his sons. But there is this remarkable difference between the two: the first is manifestly a
history of families; this is a history of nations.
I. Notice first the degree in which the original features of the founders of a race
reproduce themselves in their descendants so as to become the distinct and manifest
types of national life. The few words wherein, according to the wont of patriarchal times,
Noah, as the firstborn priest of his own family, pronounces on his sons his blessing and
his curse, sketch in outline the leading characteristics of all their after progeny.
II. We may observe also adumbrations of a mode of dealing with men which seems to
imply that in His bestowal of spiritual gifts God deals with them after some similar law.
We have seen this already in the descent of spiritual blessings along the line of the pious

firstborn of Noah; and the same may be traced again: (1) in the blessing bestowed upon
the race of Abraham; and (2) in the transference to the devouter Jacob and his seed of
the blessing which was set at nought by the profane firstborn of Isaac.
S. Wilberforce, Sermons, p. 176.
ELLICOTT, "(32) After their generations.—Heb., according to their Tôldôth. This makes
it probable that each family preserved in some way an historical record of its descent;
and as this table is called the Tôldôth of the Sons of Noah, it was probably formed by a
comparison of numerous Tôldôth, each showing the descent of various members of the
three great families into which the sons of Noah were divided.
COKE, "Genesis 10:32. By these were the nations divided, &c.— See Acts 17:26. From
what hath gone before, it appears, that, to speak according to a general view of things,
some instances excepted, the sons of Japheth peopled Europe; the sons of Shem, Asia;
and the sons of Ham, Africa. But the question is, how came that fourth and late
discovered part of the earth, America, to be peopled? For a full answer to this question
we refer the reader to an excellent dissertation on this subject in the 20th volume of Anc.
Univ. Hist. the authors of which have made it appear that, though it is very probable, the
Phoenicians, AEgyptians, and Carthaginians might have planted colonies in that vast
country, yet the bulk of the inhabitants must have come from the north-eastern part of
Asia, particularly Great Tartary, Siberia, and the peninsula of Kamtschatka: and their
remarks have been indubitably confirmed by the discoveries of that celebrated
navigator, Captain Cooke. In the conclusion of their dissertation on this subject, they
observe: "Thus have we endeavoured to evince, that the Americans were the descendants
of Noah, as well as all the nations of the ancient world; which will likewise receive some
further accession of strength from the traditions which the natives had about the flood,
and the peopling of their country after that memorable event. The Peruvians believed,
that there formerly happened a deluge, in which all the people of their continent
perished, except a few, who escaped the common destruction by retiring into cavities or
hollows upon the tops of the highest mountains, whose posterity at last re-peopled the
world. Some traditional notions of that kind prevailed also among the ancient
inhabitants of Hispaniola. There is likewise mention made in the ancient histories of
Mexico of a general flood, which swept away the whole race of mankind, except one man
and his wife. These two persons, according to them, had numerous issue; but all their
children were dumb, till endued with the faculty of speech by a dove. To which they
added, that the primitive language, spoken by the immediate descendants of the
aforesaid pair, was split into such a variety of tongues or dialects, that they could not
understand one another, and therefore were necessitated to emigrate into different
regions, and these became the founders of different nations. Nay, some of the Americans
expressly affirmed, that all men deduced their origin from four women, which seems to
approach near the Mosaic history; all which traditional notions seem manifestly to
imply, that some of the ancestors of the Americans were acquainted with the Mosaic
history."
In confirmation, that all men are descended from one family, it has been observed, that
there are many customs and usages, both civil and religious, which have prevailed in all
parts of the world, and can owe their origin to nothing but a general institution; which
institution could never have been, had not mankind been of the same blood originally,

and instructed in the same common notions, before they were dispersed. Among these
usages may be reckoned: 1st, the numbering by decads; 2nd, the computing time by a
cycle of seven days; 3rdly, the observation of a seventh day as holy; 4thly, the use of
sacrifices propitiatory and eucharistical; 5thly, the consecration of temples and altars;
6thly, the institution of sanctuaries, and their privileges; and, lastly, the universal
tradition of a general deluge, and renewing mankind afterwards.
The ethnological register.
I. PROCLAIMS THE UNITY OF THE RACE.
1. It declares all the successive families of mankind to have sprung from a common
stock. Diverse as they flow are in their geographical situations, ethnic relations, physical
capabilities, national peculiarities, according to the doctrine of this genealogical table
they all trace their origin to Noah and his sons.
2. It condemns all those theories which derive man from several pairs. Equally the
heathen superstition which assigned to each particular region its own Autochthones,
and the modern scientific dogma of varieties of species and distinct centers of
propagation is here condemned. Even now ethnologists, archaeologists, and philologists
of the highest repute lend their sanction to the sublime sentiment of the great Mars' hill
preacher, that "God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell upon all the
face of the earth." The anatomical structure of the human frame, especially of the brain
and skull, the physiological properties and functions possessed by the body, the
psychological nature of man, and the power of indefinite propagation, which are the
same in all nations, with the ascertained results of comparative grammar, which have
already traced back all existing languages to three primitive branches, tend in a powerful
degree to confirm the doctrine which this table teaches.
3. It implies certain other truths on which Scripture with equal emphasis insists, such as
the brotherhood of man, the universal corruption of the race, and the necessity and
universality of Christ's redemption.
II. ATTESTS THE DIVISION of the RACE.
1. It asserts the fact of the division. It states that in the days of Peleg the earth's
population was divided. The means employed are described in the succeeding chapter.
2. It confirms the truth of this division. Had the confusion at Babel not occurred. and the
subsequent dispersion not followed. this table could not have been written. Its existence

as a literary document in the time of Moses authenticates the fact which it reports.
3. It defines the extent of this division. It shows that the scattered race were to be split
up into nations, families, tongues.
III. ILLUSTRATES THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RACE. The geographical distribution
of the earth's population was—
1. Effected in an orderly manner. They were neither scattered promiscuously nor
suffered to wander and settle at hazard. Divided into tribes and nations according to
their tongues and dialects of speech, they were allocated to distinct portions of the
earth's surface.
2. Specially adapted to the characters and destinies of the several nations. The operation
of purely natural principles makes it impossible that tribes can permanently settle in
countries that are either incapable of yielding to them a maintenance or affording an
outlet to their powers. More extensive information would doubtless enable the suitability
of each locality in this table to the occupying people to be exhibited; but in broad outline
it is perceptible even here—Japheth, whose destiny it was to spread abroad, being
established on the coasts of the Euxine, the Caspian, and the Mediterranean; Ham
finding rest in the warmer climates, whose enervating influences tended largely to
develop his peculiar character, and ultimately to lay him open to subjection by the more
vigorous races of the North; and Shem, whose function in the Divine economy it was to
conserve religion and religious truth, being concentrated mainly in the Tigris and
Euphrates valley.
3. The result of Divine appointment. Moses (Deuteronomy 32:8) and Paul (Acts 17:26)
conspire to represent the allocation of territory to the different races of mankind as the
handiwork of God (the special means employed for the breaking up of the originally
united family of Noah's sons is detailed in the ensuing chapter); the import of which is,
that nations have a God-assigned title to the countries which they occupy.
4. The Divinely-ordered distribution of the earth's population is capable of being
disturbed by the sinful interference of man. Instances of this appear in the present table,
e.g. the intrusion of the Cushite into Shinar, and of the Canaanite into what originally
belonged to Skein.
IV. PREDICTS THE FUTURE OF THE RACE. As it were, the separation of the earth's
population into races and the moving of them outward to their respective habitations
was the starting of them on the lines along which it was designed they should
accomplish their respective destinies and common work. They were meant to overspread
the globe; and this was the initiation of a great movement which would only terminate in
the complete occupation of their God-given heritage.

Lessons:—
1. The equal rights of men.
2. The sinfulness of wars of aggression.
3. The hopefulness of emigration.
BELOW ARE TWO WIDER VIEWS OF THESE DETAILS
Dr. Ray Pritchard
Oak Park, Illinois
Many Nations Under God: A Biblical View of World History
Genesis 10
At first glance Genesis 10 would not seem to offer much promise as a sermon text. To the
untrained eye, it appears to be just one more biblical genealogy, although a closer
examination reveals that it seems oddly different from the regular genealogies. From
another point of view, it reads like an Old Testament phone book with the numbers
mysteriously left out. Sometimes we talk about giving a certain passage a “casual” or
quick reading. That obviously does not apply to Genesis 10. If you read it casually, you
will no doubt pass through the list of 70 names as quickly as possible so you can pick up
the story again in Genesis 11. Some commentators suggest that it would be a mistake to
preach on this chapter because it is impossible to interest modern congregations in this
very ancient list of names.
Whether it is a mistake or not I will leave to the reader to judge, but we will push ahead
in the belief that every word of Scripture has a message we need to hear. But I do confess
that this chapter does pose certain challenges, the most obvious one being, “What’s going
on here?” Why does Moses plop this long list of names down in the middle of his post-
flood narrative? Who are these people? Where did they come from? And most
importantly, what difference does it make? The place to begin in answering those
questions is the first verse of Genesis 10. “This is the account of Shem, Ham and Japheth,
Noah’s sons, who themselves had sons after the flood.” This verse is the key to
everything else. If we take Genesis 9-10 literally (as I think we should), then after the
flood there were only eight people living on the earth: Noah and his wife, Japheth and his
wife, Shem and his wife, Ham and his wife. From those eight people came the entire

population of the world. Genesis 10 tells us how it happened:
The Descendants of Japheth, verses 2-5.
The Descendants of Ham, verses 6-20.
The Descendants of Shem, verses 21-31.
The last verse of Genesis 10 summarizes the chapter: “These are the clans of Noah’s
sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations
spread out over the earth after the flood” (Genesis 10:32). So Genesis 10 describes what
happened when Noah and his family left the ark and reestablished civilization. The three
sons moved in three different directions. They had children, their children had children,
their children’s children had children, and over the years, those descendants formed
families, clans, tribes and nations. Some of those nations eventually became mighty
empires spread across vast regions. Alliances eventually formed among the various
descendants of Noah’s three sons. Some were friendly to Israel; others became bitter
enemies of the Jews. That last point is very important because it appears that Moses wrote
Genesis 10 sometime near the end of his life. It serves as a sort of “written map” to help
the Jews as they entered the Promised Land understand the various nations and tribes that
were in the land already and also scattered around the Middle East. And that’s why the
most space is given to the descendants of Ham. Those tribes included the Canaanites who
were under the curse of Genesis 9:23-27. They lived in the land God promised to
Abraham and his descendants. This chapter would help the Jews understand why they had
to annihilate the Canaanites without mercy.
One other point and we can move on. Since Moses wrote Genesis 10 for a particular
generation of Jewish readers, it is obviously selective in nature. For instance, Japheth had
seven sons but Moses only mentions the descendants of two of those sons, Gomer and
Javan. It’s not that the other sons of Japheth were childless, it’s just that the tribes that
sprang from them were not critical for the Jews to know about. What we have, then, is a
selective but accurate account of the nations in and around the Promised Land during the
time of the conquest under Joshua.
Playing Risk
Perhaps an illustration will help. If you have ever played the board game Risk, you know
that it contains a large map of the world. The object of the game is simple: Defeat all the
other players and end up ruling the world. Each player is given armies of a different
color—blue or red or black or brown or yellow or green. The first step in the game is for
the players to put their armies one by one on various countries or regions on the board—
Great Britain, Greenland, Japan, India, the Middle East, the Congo, Western United
States, and so on. When all the armies are in place, the game can begin. But there is a
moment—it happens in every game—just before the first player takes his turn, when
everyone stops and studies the board to see the alignment of forces. “He’s really strong in
Africa.” “I’ll bet he makes a move for Europe.” “I’m going to fight him for South
America.” “If he gets India, he’ll take all of Asia.” And on it goes. There is a moment,
always, when all the armies are in place and the fighting is about to begin, that things
grow silent. Then someone rolls the dice and the armies go into battle.

Genesis 10 is like that moment just before the first player takes his turn. It’s a snapshot of
the ancient world showing how the nations are arrayed in and around the Middle East,
especially around the Holy Land. This is what the world looks like just before the “game”
begins.
Those who have studied this chapter in detail remark on its amazing historical accuracy.
It reveals the “genius of the Hebrew mind” and gives us a peek behind the curtain into the
misty far reaches of early world history. There are 70 separate names here. Some of those
names are people, some are names of cities, and others are names of tribes or nations or
people groups. This is World History 101 as taught by Moses who was inspired by the
Holy Spirit. If you enjoy history and geography and anthropology, and if you like to make
connections between the ancient world and the 21st-century, then you’ll enjoy Genesis
10. And all of us can gain something from this chapter because this is where we came
from. This is our family tree! We are all in here somewhere. Commenting on this chapter,
Martin Luther said, “Look into the historical accounts of all nations. If it were not for
Moses alone, what would you know about the origin of man?” We would not know these
things if God did not tell us. Science and research alone can never tell us. Luther called
this passage a “mirror” to see who we really are. We are so marred with sin, so divided
from one another, that we cannot know our own history unless God himself tells us. This
chapter is a sacred thread that joins the early morning of earth history to the rest of the
Bible, and ultimately to you and to me.
I. An Outline of Genesis 10
The best discussion I have seen of Genesis 10 comes from a book by Arthur Custance
called Noah’s Three Sons. You can read it online at: www.custance.org. Click on “The
Books” and follow the links to the text of Noah’s Three Sons.
A. Descendants of Japheth 2-5
These verses list 14 names. After the flood, the descendants of Japheth spread out to the
north and west of the Middle East. Gomer lived in the region north of the Black Sea,
Madai became the father of the Medes, Javan founded the tribes living in Greece,
Meshech and Tubal settled in Russia. One branch of Japheth’s family moved east and
settled in the region of India. Thus you have the descendants of Japheth stretching from
India through Russia across the Mediterranean Sea northward into Europe and
Scandinavia. It is noteworthy that linguists tell us that there are amazing similarities
between the languages of Europe, Iran and India, to the point that they believe there was
once a common language, called by the experts “Indo-European.”
Verse 5 adds the fact that the Japhethites settled the islands and were mariners, traveling
and constantly expanding their territory.
Less is said about the descendants of Japheth because they lived in regions remote from
the Promised Land. Since they do not largely figure into the Old Testament story, they are
given very little mention in Genesis 10. The Japhethites will figure prominently in the
expansion of the gospel in the New Testament.

B. Descendants of Ham 6-20
The section on Ham’s descendants lists 30 names. After the flood, the Hamites moved
south and west. Ham’s four sons were Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan. Cush is Ethiopia,
Mizraim is Egypt, Put is Libya, and Canaan refers to the Holy Land, the land of Israel.
Verses 8-12 mention a son of Cush named Nimrod. He was a mighty warrior, a hunter, a
man of considerable skill, and a man of rebellious spirit. Nimrod means “rebel.” He was
the Rambo of the Old Testament, a despot with enormous leadership skills and great
military prowess. He founded (or took over) Babel (later to become Babylon) and
Nineveh (later to become capital of the Assyrian empire). It is noteworthy that the
Babylonians and the Assyrians were the greatest enemies of Israel in the Old Testament.
Nimrod is thus responsible for establishing vast empires in rebellion against God, filled
with idolatry and greed, and kept in power through military might and unspeakable
cruelty.
Verses 15-18 mention the various Canaanite tribes: Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites,
Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites. These were
the people Joshua and his followers had to fight when they entered the Holy Land. It is
thought that after the collapse of their empire, the Hittites migrated east and settled in the
region of western China. Custance offers extensive evidence that the “Sinites” later
became part of the Assyrian empire and at least a portion of them became part of the early
settlement of China. He offers a number of connections between the name “sin” and
various Chinese words. It is noteworthy that the study of Chinese literature, history and
culture is called “sinology.”
Some writers speculate that a branch of the Hamite people crossed the ancient land bridge
at the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska, becoming the first settlers of North and
South America. This would suggest that the various American Indian tribes along with
the Aztec and Mayan people groups are descended from Ham.
It seems indisputable that the Hamites founded the first great world empires: Egyptian,
Babylonian, Assyrian, Sumerian, Hittite, and possibly the Aztec and the Mayan empires
as well.
One other note about those Canaanite tribes mentioned in verses 15-18. Large and
powerful in Joshua’s day, the Canaanites descended from a wicked father, inherited an
awful curse, possessed a large area, and established a massive power base. They
prospered for a long time. Only slowly were they conquered and ultimately destroyed in
fulfillment of Noah’s words in Genesis 9:23-27.
C. Descendants of Shem 21-31
This section lists 26 names. From Shem come the Assyrians, the Hebrews, some of the
Arab tribes, and tribes that lived in parts of Turkey, Syria and Armenia. The “Uz” who
was a son of Aram (v. 23) founded a tribe in the northern Arabian desert. Job was from
the “land of Uz.” Eber (v. 25) is very significant because from his name comes the
general title “Hebrew,” which is first used of Abraham in Genesis 14:13. From Elam

comes the Elamites, from Asshur the Assyrians, and from Aram the Aramites, all
important groups in Old Testament history. The modern term “Semitic” literally means
“descended from Shem.”
The name Peleg (v. 25) means “divided,” because in his days the earth was divided. That
may refer to the division of languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) or it may
infer that after the flood, the continents were once joined together and later separated. The
modern theory of continental drift is similar to this, although on a vastly different
timescale.
Verse 26 lists the sons of Joktan, the brother of Peleg. Those descendants of Joktan
settled in the Arabian Peninsula, in the area of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, and the
United Arab Emirates.
The careful Bible student will note that the descendants of Ham and Shem in many cases
lived side by side in very close proximity. We should not be surprised that they are
continually at odds throughout the Old Testament.
By far the most important fact about Shem is that the Messiah will be his direct
descendant. Genesis 3:15 predicts a coming “seed of the woman” who will one day crush
the serpent’s head. This will much later be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Genesis 10 lists the
descendants of Shem last to emphasize that God’s promise will be fulfilled in the line of
Shem. That line looks like this:
Shem
Arphaxad
Shelah
Eber
Peleg
Genesis 11 will continue the line from Peleg, climaxing in the birth of Abraham. Here is
the line in a very compressed form:
Adam
Noah
Shem
Abraham
By the end of Genesis 10, the human race is hopelessly divided into a bewildering variety
of tribes, nations and empires, separated from one another and from God. But even while
rebellious humans separate from each other, God continues to keep his promise alive
across the generations.
II. Lessons from the Table of Nations
I find it fascinating to study this chapter from the standpoint of history, geography, and
the unfolding evidence of God’s hand at work across the ages. There are also important
spiritual lessons to be learned from Genesis 10.
A. The Unity of the Human Race.

This may seem like an odd lesson after studying a chapter that emphasizes the division of
humanity. Yet the broader point is clear. After the flood everyone on earth is descended
from one of three men—Japheth, Seth or Ham. That includes all six billion people who
presently inhabit planet earth. We all descend from these three sons of Noah. This means
that today’s diversity is not the last word. The human race is diverse in geography,
language, culture, skin color, physical capabilities, dress, habits, diet, and so on. But those
differences, as real and profound as they are, are not the final truth. We are all branches
from the same family true. And every person is related to every other person on earth.
Here is the proof. You can take the blood of an Irishman and transfuse it into the body of
a woman from Japan and his blood will save her life. Or you can take her blood and
transfuse it into a man from Brazil, and her blood will save his life. Researchers tell us
that human DNA is so stable that you can take two people from any place on earth,
compare their DNA, and it will be 99.8% identical. Furthermore, of the 0.2% difference,
the visible characteristics (such as skin color, eye shape, and so on) account for only
0.012% of the genetic difference. This means that the so-called “racial” differences,
which seem so important to many people, are trivial to the point of insignificance. (For a
fascinating discussion of this whole question, see One Blood: The Biblical Answer to
Racism by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland, and Don Batten, Master Books, 1999.)
This leads us to many other important truths. We are all made in God’s image. All are
sinners who fall short of God’s glory. We are all highly valued, deeply fallen, and greatly
loved. And all of us can be saved through Jesus Christ.
Last Wednesday night 3,500 people gathered in Mills Park for a September 11 Memorial
Service sponsored by eight local churches. Of the many comments I have heard since
then, one has been repeated over and over again. “It was so good to see people from so
many different backgrounds worshiping the Lord together.” One man said, “This is like a
little bit of heaven.” All those churches, all those people. All those backgrounds, colors,
languages, joining together in a public park to remember, to honor, and to proclaim our
hope in Christ. This is truly what heaven will be like. Revelation 7 tells us that there will
be some from every tongue, tribe, nation, and from every people group on earth gathered
round the throne, praising the Lamb that was slain. God’s redemptive vision encompasses
the whole wide world.
A Humbling and Exalting Truth
What a humbling truth this is. We Americans can sometimes act arrogant, as if we are
somehow innately superior to people from other countries. (If you doubt my words, ask
someone born and raised outside this country.) We are not genetically superior to other
people in other places. That was Hitler’s mistake. He truly believed the “Aryans” were
superior to the “mongrel” races that deserved to be enslaved and then destroyed. But
Hitler was mistaken. The foulest person on earth is my brother, part of my family tree.
One way we deny this is by using demeaning terms to attack one another—insults and
stereotypes that lift us up and put others down.
But this is also an exalting truth. All the kings and heroes, all the soldiers who marched in
righteous battles, all the wise and strong and good, all are my brothers and my sisters, too.

Let’s face it. Our ancestors are a mixed lot. There are heroes and villains in every family
tree. Every man has a chicken thief among his ancestors. (When I said that on Sunday
morning, a man came up to me and said, “I don’t have a chicken thief in my family, but
my uncle robbed the First National Bank.” “That qualifies,” I replied.) And every woman
has a Florence Nightingale back there somewhere. We’re all in the same boat, aren’t we?
Rich man, poor man, beggar man, thief. King, pauper, prince, clown, murderer. This is
our common lot. The earth is one, and humanity is one, and there is only one God over
all.
From this truth we get a clear view of world missions. Sometimes we talk about “home”
versus “foreign” missions. But where does home end and where does foreign begin?
These days you can walk down the street and meet people from six nations living on the
same block. The world has come to America, and especially to the big cities of America.
This world is my home; all men are related to me. We are all in the same human family.
“The world is my parish,” declared John Wesley. We should say the same thing.
It is easy to grow narrow and provincial and to say, “Us four and no more.” Just my kind.
Just my color. Just my culture. Just my language. Just my people. Just my background.
Just my tradition. Just my preferences. Pretty soon you end up with a church all by
yourself because no one else fits there. Christ came to redeem us from our smallness, our
littleness, our narrowness. Jesus said, “Go and teach all nations,” and “My house shall be
called a house of prayer for all nations.” The great Apostle Paul declared, “I am a debtor
to all men.” We are called to care for the people of the world. Christianity will not allow
the heart to be small, but opens the heart to the whole wide world of men and women
made in God’s image.
If we have narrow visions and small ideas and exclusive claims that we are better than
others because of our heritage or background or skin color, then we do not understand the
gospel message.
B. The Sovereignty of God over Every Nation.
Genesis 10 emphasizes this truth by the very fact that the nations are listed by clans and
languages, in their territories and nations (v. 20). Lest we think this happens by accident,
consider the words of Deuteronomy 32:8, “When the Most High gave the nations their
inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according
to the number of the sons of Israel.” Though it may seem that “might makes right,”
history testifies that God is in charge of where men and nations end up. He apportions
their places and boundaries.
I have often meditated on the amazing words of Acts 17:26, “From one man he made
every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the
times set for them and the exact places where they should live.” The King James Version
of the first phrase is very picturesque: God “hath made of one blood” all the nations that
dwell on the earth. One blood. What a powerful image.
No such thing as American blood.

No such thing as French blood.
No such thing as Pakistani blood.
No such thing as Israeli blood.
No such thing as Finnish blood.
No such thing as Filipino blood.
There is only one blood. Human blood. It flows in endless varieties but it is all “one
blood.”
The theory of racial superiority has led to horrible results in history. Just over a half-
century ago the Nazis elevated the “pure Aryan” race and used that as an excuse to
murder 12 million Jews, Slavs, Ukrainians, Russians, and others deemed inferior and
unworthy. In our own country the belief in white superiority fueled slavery, segregation,
and the Jim Crow Laws. It still causes men to loathe and fear others of a different color.
Against the evils of racism Paul declares, “We’re all from the same stock. Fruit from the
same branch. Born into the same human family.” This is the basis for Christian
reconciliation between the races and the various ethnic groups in society and in the
church.
More Alike Than Different
It is also confirmed by common sense. The more you travel around the world, the more
common humanity seems to be. Superficially we are very different in our appearance,
background, language and customs. But scratch deeper and you discover that all people
are substantially the same. Once past the surface, you discover no fundamental difference
between a savage in the jungle and a corporate lawyer on Wall Street or between a
woman in a brothel in Rio and a refined graduate of Vassar College. Everywhere we are
the same—the same longings, regrets, dreams, hopes, the same need to love and be loved,
the same desire to bear children and raise a family, with the same sense that there must be
a God of some kind who made us.
As long as we live together on the earth there will be various races, colors, pigments,
backgrounds, languages and cultures. These differences are not evil and should not be
ignored or deprecated. There is much to appreciate in the various differences in humanity.
But let us be clear on this point: There is only one race in God’s eyes—the human race.
Secondary differences do not matter to him the way they seem to matter so much to us.
Paul’s point is clear. Since we all descend from the same person, there is no room for
inordinate pride or a feeling of superiority over others. We’re all in this together—and we
all need the saving touch of Jesus Christ.
This truth provides the biblical basis for civil rights and for fair treatment of all people.
This is the biblical argument against all prejudice and racial discrimination.
C. The Narrowing of God’s Purposes.
Ray Stedman called his sermon on Genesis 10, “God’s Funnel.” A funnel is an instrument

for concentrating the flow of something from a wide area into a small area. That’s what’s
happening here. Although it appears that God is working only with nations, the end of the
chapter reminds us that the line of promise goes from one man to another. Shem is the
neck of the funnel. The line that started with Adam goes to Noah, then to Shem, on to
Peleg, eventually to Abraham, and thousands of years later will climax with the birth of
Jesus Christ in Bethlehem. The flow of the biblical story moves from many nations to one
man, Abraham, through whom all the nations on earth will be blessed. And how will this
blessing come to the nations? Through the ultimate “Seed of Abraham,” the Lord Jesus
Christ.
Thus at the end of Genesis 10, we come face to face with Jesus Christ. This is where
every biblical sermon must end. He is the goal of every part of the Bible. Genesis 10 ends
with the nations divided and in rebellion against God. And to a world in a rebellion, God
says, “I love you! I love you! I love you!” This is the message of the gospel. And the
question becomes very personal. If God has arranged all the events of history to bring his
Son to the world, then you must eventually answer this question: “What have you done
with Jesus?” Truth demands a personal response. All that I have written is just an
academic exercise if it does not lead you to personal faith in Christ.
History is His Story.
You cannot live without him. He is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through Jesus.
Do you know him?
“I Just Didn’t Know His Name”
In her book God’s Story (pp. 259-260), Anne Graham Lotz tells the following story:
Elizabeth Carter was a young American woman who taught English in mainland China.
On a weekend outing with friends, she hiked up Tai Shan, a holy mountain, not too far
from the city where she worked. At the base of the mountain, as she began her ascent, she
saw an old beggar sitting by the path. She felt very impressed to speak with him and tell
him about God. Because her friends hurried on up the path, Elizabeth suppressed the urge
to stop and speak, and so she passed him by.
During the afternoon exploration on the mountain, her thoughts kept returning to that old
beggar. She began to deeply regret having not spoken to him, knowing that he would
most likely have left before she returned. As she descended the summit in the early
evening she resolved to make time to speak to him if he was still there.
When Elizabeth reached the base of the mountain, to her eager surprise, the old beggar
was still sitting exactly where he had been before. This time she went over to him and
gently began to speak to him. She told him that there is a God Who created all things, that
the great Creator God had created him because he loved him and wanted to be known by
him. She told the old man that God had sent his Son to die on a cross as a sacrifice for the

man’s sin, and that if he placed his faith in God’s Son, Jesus, he would be forgiven and
would receive eternal life.
As Elizabeth continued telling the old man about God, tears began to slip down his
weather-beaten face, moistening his few wispy white whiskers. Thinking she had
offended him in some way, Elizabeth asked what was wrong. The old man smiled
through his tears and said softly, ‘I have worshiped him all my life. I just didn’t know his
name.’
It doesn’t matter who you are or where you are or what family or group or clan or tribe or
race or nation you come from. You might be a beggar on a street corner in Calcutta or a
businessman in a Singapore high-rise. You might be a taxi driver in Madrid or a farmer in
Belarus. You might live in a village in Chad or you might be an entertainer at a nightclub
in Sao Paulo. You could be a housewife in Tulsa or a Drivers Ed teacher in Cicero. You
could be married or single, male or female, rich or poor, old or young, healthy or very
sick. The specific circumstances of your life do not change the fundamental truth. All of
us were with born with a desire to know the God who made us. But most people living on
earth do not really know his Name.
His name is Jesus.
Here is the question you must answer: “What have you done with Jesus?” History truly is
His Story. You cannot live without him.
What have you done with Jesus?
RAY STEDMAN
GOD'S FUNNEL
by Ray C. Stedman
We come now to Genesis 10, a very difficult chapter. I shall ask you to be patient with me
as we look at it together. Some of you may not find it quite what you feel you may need,
for it is a fascinating chapter to study but exceedingly dreary to read. Perhaps you may
say, "Why should we spend time with a passage like this?" In answer, I would say that it
is extremely important that we understand God's movements in history. This helps us
realize and accept the fact that what we read in Scripture about eternal life and the things
of the Spirit is realistic and true to life around us; that we are dealing with the Word of
God and therefore with life as it really is. Perhaps we can see this most clearly in a
chapter like this.
Chapter 10 of Genesis is a record of how mankind fanned out over all the earth, like
spokes in a wheel, radiating from a center which both science and Scripture place in the
Middle East. The Middle East has been called, "the cradle of civilization," or "the cradle

of mankind." We are now dealing with the days immediately following the Flood, when
the sons of Noah became the heads of three major divisions or families of mankind. In
this chapter we learn how they spread throughout the earth. We have already studied the
prophetic utterance of Noah concerning the contribution his three sons and their
descendants would make to humanity.
We saw that to Shem was given the religious primacy of mankind. The Semitic peoples
are responsible, under God, to develop the spiritual life of mankind. It is not surprising,
therefore, that from the Semitic peoples have come the three major religions of earth:
Judaism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity. To Ham was given the art of technical
proficiency. The Hamitic people are the technicians of mankind, showing an amazing
adaptability to the world in which they live. To Japheth was given intellectual
enlargement, and the widest geographical distribution of the three families. History has
long since confirmed abundantly this distribution of mankind, exactly as the Bible says.
Now we could spend hours in Chapter 10 tracing the development of these families, but a
Sunday morning sermon is not quite the place for that kind of treatment. This is the kind
of chapter that requires careful and exhaustive study, but I shall merely attempt a quick
survey, pausing where Moses, the author of Genesis, also pauses to make comment on
certain names that appear in this section. These are important comments and we need to
understand why Scripture suddenly turns the spotlight upon certain individuals.
The division begins with Japheth and his descendants,
These are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth; sons were
born to them after the flood.
The sons of Japheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras. The
sons of Gomer: Ashkenaz, Riphath, and Togarmah. The sons of Javan: Elishah, Tarshish,
Kittim, and Dodanim. From these the coastland peoples spread. These are the sons of
Japheth in their lands, each with his own language, by their families, in their nations.
(Genesis 10:1-5 RSV)
This division of the chapter, centering on Japheth, is the shortest, yet to us in many ways
it is the most important, because it is to this family of mankind that most of us belong.
We are Japhethites and we find this of intense interest, although the Scripture spends the
least time with it.
Those who study races and peoples are known as ethnologists, and one of the tools of
ethnology is to trace the persistence of names through history. Some of these place names
and names of individuals persist for a long time through the course of human events, and
form a kind of peg or nail upon which we can hang certain important movements in
history and by which we can trace certain developments. We can do this with many of the
names in this passage. Letters may be transposed, endings added, prefixes taken away or
added, but there is a basic root which persists for years and even centuries of the time,
and these give us a way of tracing the spread of the peoples of earth.

The family of Japheth is essentially what we call the Aryans. Hitler made much of the
Aryan race, claiming that the Germans were pure Aryans and the rest were mongrels. Of
course, the Jews were of a completely different family. He was right about that, for the
Jews are Semitic (from Shem) while the Aryans are from Japheth. But where Hitler made
his mistake (and where many people today make a mistake) is to fail to differentiate
between differences which exist between people and a supposed superiority. Because
people are different is no sign that they are inferior or superior. This is one of the basic
things we need to understand in studying the peoples of the earth.
Early in the history of the world, the Japhethites, or Aryans, split into two groups. One
group settled in India and the other group in Europe. Together they form what is known
as the "Indo-European" family of nations. Any ethnographer is familiar with these
divisions, but they are the same basic stock. The next time you visit India you should
realize that you are visiting your cousins in the same basic family. The interesting thing is
that both of these divisions, the Indian and the European, trace their ancestry back to
Japheth. This is not from the Bible, but from history:
The Greeks say that their ancestor was a man named Japetos, and you can see in that the
resemblance to Japheth. They regarded him as not only the father of their race, but the
father of all humanity. The Indians, on the other hand, have an account of the flood
similar in many respects to the Biblical account. The name of their hero is not Noah, but
Satyaurata, and he had three sons. The name of the oldest was Iyapeti (you can see
Japheth in that, very easily), and the other two were Sharma, and C'harma (Shem and
Ham). The interesting thing about the Indian account is that C'harma was cursed by his
father because he laughed at him when he got drunk, a certain echo of the story we have
in Genesis.
You see from this how this chapter is embedded in history. The Word of God is dealing
with realistic matters when it traces these divisions.
We learn here that Japheth had seven sons, but only two of them are traced for us in any
detail: The first son was Gomer. From this word, Gomer, by a process of elision and
transposition of letters, there came the word, Gaul, or Galatianslic. These are the people,
interestingly enough, to whom the New Testament Epistle to the Galatians is written. The
Galatians were Gauls. Most of us have a Galatianslic or Celtic (or Keltic) ancestry, and
the Gauls and Celts (or Kelts) were descendants of Gomer. They migrated to the north
and settled in Spain, France and in Britain. From these Gauls come most of the early
families of Western Europe and, consequently, of the Americas as well.
The oldest son of Gomer was Ashkenaz. He and his descendants first settled around the
Black Sea and then moved north into a land which is called Ascenia, and which later
became known as the Islands of Scandia, which we now know as Scandinavia. You can
trace a direct link between Ashkenaz and Scandinavia. Another of the sons of Gomer was
Riphath. Although we do not know too much about Riphath, we do know that he located
in Central Europe, and some scholars feel that the word, Europe, itself comes from this
name, Riphath. Another son is Togarmah. This name is easily traced. He was the ancestor
of the present-day Turks and Armenians, who also migrated northward into Southern

Germany. Certain scholars have felt that the word, Germany, derives from the word,
Togarmah. If you drop the first syllable you have the basic root of Germany.
Two others of the sons of Japheth were Madai and Javan. These are easily recognizable in
history: The Madai became the Medes, of the famous Medes and Persian Empire. Javan is
unquestionably the ancestor of the Greeks. His name, Javan, is still found in Greece in the
form of Ionia. The Ionic Sea and Ionian Peninsula all derive from this word Javan. His
sons were Elishah, from which we get the Greek word, Helles (the Greeks are still called
Hellenes), and Tarshish, whom most scholars associate with Spain; Kittim, which is the
Island of Cyprus; and Dodanim, who settled around the Black Sea, and still finds a
modern parallel in the word, the Dardanelles. These can all be traced by the geographical
titles and place names they left behind.
Next is the family of Ham, which is the family gifted with technical proficiency. Because
of the great adaptability of these people to primitive conditions, the Hamites became the
great pioneers of mankind. All the early civilizations were Hamitic: the Egyptians, the
Babylonians, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Sumerians. These were the people most able to
adapt themselves to the conditions they found wherever they settled. We owe a great deal
to the Hamitic nations. Later on, these lands were occupied by Japhetic nations, and at the
present day the entire Western hemisphere is peopled by Japhetic rather than Hamitic
nations, though it was once the other way around.
We shall take the family of Ham in two sections, briefly commenting on certain items:
The sons of Ham: Cush, Egypt, Put, and Canaan. The sons of Cush: Seba, Havilah,
Sabtah, Raamah, and Sabteca. The sons of Raamah: Sheba and Dedan. Cush became the
father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to be a mighty man. He was a mighty hunter
before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the Lord."
The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of
Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Reho'both-Ir, Calah, and
Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city. Egypt became the father of
Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim (whence came the
Philippiansistines), and Caphtorim. (Genesis 10:6-14 RSV)
The four sons of Ham are relatively easy to trace in history: Cush is associated with the
peoples of Southern Arabia and Ethiopia. Ethiopians still trace their ancestry back to
Cush. Egypt is self explanatory. Egypt (or Mizraim in Hebrew, an ancient name for
Egypt) became the father of the Egyptian Empire, settling in the Nile Valley. Put is
associated with Lydia, on the west of Egypt, in North Africa. Canaan centered largely in
and around Palestine, though the Canaanites later became much more widespread, as this
account tells us further on.
The account zooms in on an individual named Nimrod, who is called a great hunter. He is
a rather mysterious figure, of great importance in ancient history. He is the founder, as we
are told, of both Babylon and Nineveh, the two great cities of antiquity which ultimately
became enemies of Israel. The prominent thing said about him here is that he was a
mighty man, "a mighty hunter before the LORD." Now it was the work of kings in those

ancient days to be hunters. This was a time when civilization was sparse and wild animals
were a constant threat to the peoples. Kings, having nothing much else to do, organized
hunting parties and acted as the protectors of their people by killing wild animals. Nimrod
evidently gained a great reputation as such a hunter, but he was more than a hunter of
wild animals. The Jewish Talmud helps us here, for it says that he was "a hunter of the
souls of men." By the founding of Babylon and Nineveh we have a hint given of the
nature of this man. We are told here that he was "the first mighty man on earth," i.e., after
the Flood. That phrase, "mighty man," takes us back to Genesis 6 where, in that strange
story of the invasion of the "sons of God" into the human race, there resulted a race of
giants called Nephilim. We are told that, "these were the mighty men that were of old, the
men of renown." This was evidently a demonic invasion of the race, with sexual
overtones, which brought into being a race of giants that were morally degraded. These
also appear later on in the Canaanite tribes. We have found this suggestive line of thought
running through the Scriptural account up to this point. It now suggests that Nimrod was
one of these "mighty men," and therefore introduced a perverted, degraded form of
religion into the world. It began at Babylon, spread to Nineveh, and can be traced in
history as it subsequently spread throughout the whole of the earth. Thus, in this man
Nimrod, we have the seed of idolatry and false religion coming in again after the Flood.
If you drop the first consonant of Nimrod's name and take the others -- M, R, D -- you
will have the basic root of the god of Babylon, whose name was Marduk, and whom most
scholars identify with Nimrod. In the Babylonian religion, Nimrod (or Marduk) held a
unique place. His wife was Semiramis. (Some of you who have been at Cairo have stayed
at the Semiramis Hotel, which is named after her.) Marduk and Semiramis were the
ancient god and goddess of Babylon. They had a son whom Semiramis claimed was
virgin-born, and they founded the mother and child cult. This was the central character of
the religion of ancient Babylon, the worship of a mother and child, supposedly virgin
born. You can see in this a clever attempt on the part of Satan to anticipate the genuine
virgin birth and thus to cast disrepute upon the story when the Lord Jesus would later be
born into history. This has been the effect of it.
This ancient Babylonian cult of the mother and child spread to other parts of the earth.
You will find it in the Egyptian religion as Isis and Osiris. In Greece it is Venue and
Adonis and in Hindu it is Ushas and Vishnu. The same cult prevails in various other
localities. It appears in the Old Testament in Jeremiah, where the Israelites are warned
against offering sacrifices to "the Queen of Heaven." This Queen of Heaven is Semiramis,
the wife of Nimrod, the original mother of the mother and child cult. The cult has also
crept into Christianity and forms the basis for the Mariolatry that has prevailed in Roman
Catholic Church, where the Mother and Child are worshipped as joint redeemers.
If you would like to read more on this, there is a book by Alexander Hislop, a very
authoritative writer in this field, called The Two Babylons. I am sure you will find it of
great interest if you desire to pursue this further.
This idolatrous religion culminates at last in the Bible in the book of Revelation. You
remember the "great harlot" that appears there whose name is "Mystery Babylon the
Great," the originator of all the harlotries and false religions of earth. The essence of

Babylonianism, as we understand from Scripture, is the attempt to gain earthly honor by
means of religious authority. That is Babylonianism, and it has pervaded Christian
churches, Hindu temples, Buddhist shrines, and Mohammedan mosques. Everywhere it is
the element that marks falseness in religion, this attempt to gain earthly power and
prestige by means of religious authority. That is Babylonianism. That is what Nimrod
began and what God will ultimately destroy, as we read in the book of Revelation.
The land of Shinar, mentioned here, is also the land of Shunar or Shumar, from which we
get the word, Sumeria, and the Sumerian civilization, with which scholars are familiar.
The city of Resen was founded by people who later migrated into the north of Italy and
began the great Etruscan Empire, which again is familiar to any who study ancient
history. We also have here the countries that came from Egypt and are associated with it
here, all of which are countries of North Africa.
One further note on this section: Note that the Philippiansistines, which appear frequently
elsewhere in the Old Testament, are linked with the Egyptians. This is significant, for
Egypt in the Bible is always a picture of the world; the Philippiansistines are a picture of
the flesh in its religious aspect, religious flesh or Pharisaism, if you like. These are
forever typified by these two nations. The second section of the sons of Ham centers on
the descendants of Canaan,
Canaan became the father of Sidon his first-born, and Heth, and the Jebusites, the
Amorites, the Girgashites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, the Arvadites, the
Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.
And the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon, Gomorrah, Admah, and
Zeboiim, as far as Lasha. These are the cons of Ham, by their families, their languages,
their lands, and their nations. (Genesis 10:15-20 RSV)
In a previous message we saw that these constituted the Canaanite tribes which occupied
the land of Palestine at the time of Abraham. They were a morally degraded people, and
were that as a result of demonic invasion. That does not mean that every individual was
demonically possessed, but there was considerable experience of this among these people.
We must note certain individuals in this listing, but not all:
Sidon is mentioned as the first-born of Canaan. He founded the city by the same name,
located near Tyre, on the coast of Phoenicia. Since there is no mention of Tyre here we
can see how early this account is. Heth is the father of the Hittite nation. The Hittites were
once regarded by archaeologists as a biblical blunder. Archaeologists said the Bible was
absolutely wrong when it mentioned the Hittites, for there was no such people. But since
that time, Hittite relics have been discovered in abundance, and scholars are now well
aware of the great civilization that flourished under the Hittites. The Hebrew form of this
word, Hittite, is Khettai and from this comes the word Cathay, which many of you will
recognize as an ancient name for China. Certain of the Hittites migrated eastward and
settled in China. Also, another name in this list, the Sinites, is linked with China. It
derives from a presumed son of Canaan whose name was Sin. The Sinites migrated
eastward until they came into Western China, where they founded the ancient Empire of
China and gave their name to the land. There is a direct connection between the word

China and the word Sinim, the biblical name for China. (I remember reading as a boy of
the Sino-Japanese War, showing how the ancient name still persists.) They pushed
eastward and toward the north over the land bridge into Alaska. The Sinites are the
people who settled the Americas in prehistoric days and became the ancestors of the
Eskimos and Indians who, to this very day, betray their Mongoloid ancestry.
Now the third family that is traced here is Shem:
To Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the elder bother of Japheth,
children were born. The sons of Shem: Elam Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram. The
sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Mash. Arpachshad became the father of Shelah; and
Shelah became the father of Eber. To Eber was born two sons: the name of the one was
Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Joktan. Joktan
became the father of Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jeremiahah, Hadoram, Uzal,
Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah, and Jobah; all these were the sons of
Joktan. The territory in which they lived extended from Mesha in the direction of Sephar
to the hill country of the east. These are the sons of Shem, by their families, their
languages, their lands, and their nations.
These are the families of the sons of Noah, according to their genealogies, in their
nations; and from these the nations spread abroad on the earth after the flood. (Genesis
10:21-32 RSV)
The noteworthy thing said here is that:
Shem was the father of the children of Eber. Actually, Eber was a great-grandson of
Shem, but from Eber comes the word Hebrew. Abraham, who was really the founder of
the Hebrew nation, was six generations beyond Eber. Yet Eber is of such note that
Abraham is identified as an Eberite, or Hebrew.
Elam, the next son of Shem, is associated with Southern Mesopotamia. Archaeologists
have now found that the earliest inhabitants of this area were Semites, not Hamites, as
they once thought. Asshur is the one who gave his name to Assyria. The genealogy closes
with Eber's two sons, Peleg and Joktan.
The tribes listed as from Joktan are all associated with Arabia. The boundaries of Mesha
and Sephar given here are both within the Arabian Peninsula. Our main interest, however,
centers on Peleg and this cryptic comment made about him, "in his days the earth was
divided." What do you think that means? Peleg in Hebrew, means "Division," but in
Greek it means "Sea." We get our present English word archipelago from this: archi-
pelagos, the first sea. The Greeks called the Aegean Sea "The Archipelago," the first sea,
drawing the name from this man, Peleg.
There is some evidence to link this with the scientific theory of continental drift; the idea
that once the continents were bound together in one great land mass, but sometime in the
past they separated and began to drift apart until the Americas came to their present
location, Australia slid down into the south, Antarctica still further south, and the

continents assumed the present distribution of land mass on the earth. Some have
suggested that this may have occurred as late as the days of Peleg, immediately following
the Flood. Perhaps the great rift valleys of Africa and Asia had not yet formed, and, in
Peleg's day, these drew apart so that the seas broke into this inner world and formed the
Red Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the Dead Sea. This would be the formation of the
first sea, from which we get the word archipelago.
There are many geologists, of course, who would raise questions about this, for they
would say this is far too late in history for anything like that to have occurred. The
account here is much too brief for us to be dogmatic about this, but it is very suggestive.
If this were the case, it may well have been that the American continent was still in view
of Europe and Asia in those days, and that as it moved westward gradually disappeared
from the horizon. This gave rise to the many myths and stories about a lost continent
called Atlantis which disappeared beneath the Atlantic. There are many interesting
threads here that we would love to follow.
Now we must come to the explanation of the title I have chosen for this sermon, God's
Funnel. A funnel is an instrument or device for narrowing a flow of liquid or powder
from a wide expanse to a narrow one. That is what God is doing here in Genesis 10.
Shem is put last of the sons of Noah because God is narrowing the flow of sacred history
down to the Semitic races. Shem is the neck of the funnel. God is restricting the stream of
humanity that he will deal with personally and directly down to one family group, the
family of Shem. In Chapter 11, Verse 10 on to the end of the chapter, he takes this up
again and narrows it still further to one man, Abraham. From there it begins to broaden
out again to take in Abraham and all his descendants, both physical and spiritual. The rest
of the Bible is all about the children of Abraham, physically and spiritually. Here we have
then one of the most important links in understanding the Bible.
Why does God do this? He has been accused of showing favoritism in picking the people
of Israel for his link with humanity. But it is not that. God is no respecter of persons, as
we are told. He does this because it is necessary in view of the limitations of our minds,
not of his. No one man can grasp the whole widespread, varied, world of mankind. We
cannot do so even today. At election time we take polls to determine what people are
thinking, because we cannot grasp or assimilate in any way what the entire mass of a
people are thinking. We must take polls, samples. God is doing this with Israel. Israel
becomes the sample nation, the sample people. Through the rest of the Bible, whatever is
true of Israel is true of everyone; their story is our story -- your story and my story. Their
stubborn rebellion is the same rebellion that we display, and their spiritual blessing under
God is the same kind that we can expect if we open ourselves to respond to the grace of
God. One fact comes drumming through all this otherwise dry genealogy: that is that God
is seeking somehow to break through into our hearts and wills. He presses upon us in
great historic sweeps and in the minor incidents that happen to each of us.
The great question we must raise in a service like this is: Are you listening? Are you
getting the message God wants you to get?

He writes it large upon the landscape of history, and also he writes it small in the
incidents of your daily life. But in every case it is the same truth pressing through to us.
God is essential to us. We cannot live without God. You cannot fulfill yourself, you
cannot find yourself without him. He loves you, is seeking you, wants you, and is drawing
you to himself. Forever this finds its confirmation in all of life around us.

Genesis 10 commentary

More Related Content

Similar to Genesis 10 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Genesis 10 commentary