§ 5. THE GENERATIONS OF THE SoNs OF NoAH (Cu. X. 1-XI. 9). I. THE historical credibility of the present superiority of the other's account, which here section has been challenged. 1. On account lies in nothing else than the historic:i.l truth of a fancied resemblance to the ethnographic itself belonging to it" (Intro.,§ 17). And mythologies of Greece, the genealogical table the historical truthfulness of the Mosaic of the nations has been relegated to the document is further strikingly authentic:i.ted category of fictitious invention. It has been by the accredited results of modern ethno- assigned by many critics to a post-Mosaic logical science, which, having undertaken period, to the days of Joshua (Delitzsch), by o. careful analysis of facts to est.a.blish a \O the age of Hebrew intercourse with the classification of races, has divided mankind Phenician Canaanites (Knobel), to the era into three primitive groups (Shemitic, Aryan, of the exile (Bohlen); and the specific pur- Turanian or Allophylian), corresponding not pose of its composition has been declared to obscurcly to the threefold arrangement c,f be a desire to gratify the national pride of the present table, and presenting in each the Hebrews by tracing their descent to the group the leading races that Genesis assigns first-born son of Noah, that their rights might to the several sons of Noah ; e.s, e. q., allo- appear to have a 8upelior foundation to cating to the Inda-European family, as Moses those of other nations (Hartmann"). But has done to the sons of Japheth, the principal the primogeniture of Shem is at least doubt- races of Europe, with the great Asia.tic race ful, if not entirely incorrect, J apheth being known as Aryan ; to the Shemitic, the Assy- the oldest of Noah's sons (vide rh. v. 32; x. rinns, Syrians, Hebrews, and J okta.nite Arabs, 21); while it is a gratuitous assumption that which appear nmong the sons of Shem in not until the dnys of the monarchy, or the the present table ; and to the Allophylia.n, exile, did the Israelites become acquainted the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Southern Arabs, with foreign nations. The authenticity and and early Babylonians, which the primitive genuineness of the present register, it is ethnologist of Genesis also writes among the justly remarked by Hiivernick, aro guaranteed sons of Ham (cf. R1nvlinson's 'Hist. lllus. by the chronicler (eh. i. 1 ). "In the time of 0. T.,' p. 23). 2. The narrative of the of the chronicler nothing more was known building of the tower of Babel has also been from antiquity concerning the origin of impugned, and that chielly on two grou.ncls : nntions than wh1tt Genesis supplied. Sup- viz., (1) on incorrect derivation of the term posing, then, that some inquiring mind Babel, which is now said to hove no con- composed this table of nations from merely nection whatever with the confusion of reflecting on the nations that happened to tongues, but to be the word "Bab-ii," the exist nt the same period, and flttempting to house or gnto of God, or "Bab-Bel," thu give them a systematic arrangement, how gate or coUl't of Belus; and (2) an incorrect could it possibly happer, th1tt his turn of explanation of the present diveNity of mind should be in such complete harmony tongues among mankind, which modern with that of the other 1 This could onlv philology hns now shown to be due to local lriso from the one rccogn isi ng the dccide;l separation, 1md not at all to II mirnculo~ THE BOOK OF GENESIS. [ctt. x. 1-8~.
interference with the orgnns or the faculty of the exprossiou "every 0110 nftcr his tongue" of speech. 'fo each of these objections a (ver. 6), the similar cxpressi,ms (vers. 20, specific reply "ill be returned in the expo- 31), the I l ,ry of Nimrod commencing at sition of the text (q. v.) ; in the mean time "he bega11" (ver. 8), vcr. 21, and the state- it may be stated that there are not wanting ment beginning "for" (,·er. 26), all of which, sufficiently numerous testimonies from nn- with eh. xi. 1-9, he places to the credit cient history, archmological rescnrch, and of his redactor. But the literary unity of philolbgical inquiry to authenticate this the entire section is so apparent that Colenso most interesting portion of the Di vino record, believes both passages, "the table of nations" II. The liierary unity of the present and " the confusion of tongues," to be the section ha.s been assailed. Tuch ascribes eh. work of the J ehovist ; and certainly the x. to the Elohist and eh. xi. 1-9 to the latter narr'ltivo is represented in so intimate Jchonst; and with this Bleck and Vaihinger a connection with the former that it is much agree, except that they apportion eh. x. 8- more likely to have been composed by the 12 to the J ehovist. Davidson assigns to original historian than inserted later as a him the whole of eh. x., with the exception happy afterthought by a post-exilian editor.