Bible Question:
Are there inaccuracies in the Table of Nations in Genesis 11?
Bible Answer:
The Table of Nations is found in Genesis 10:1-31. It provides a list of the descendants of Noah’s sons – Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Bible students and genealogists have researched the long list of descendants of Noah’s sons in an attempt to determine in which parts of the world their descendants are now located. As a result, there are some critics who claim that there are inaccuracies in the relationships within the Table of Nations. They state that the Indo-European speaking Hittites were not descendants from Canaan in Genesis 10:15 and the Elamites did not descend from Shem as indicated in verse 22. But such claims cannot be logically supported as will be shown in this brief study.
Lions Gate at Hattusha, Hittite Empire
The Table of Nations has three major divisions. Genesis 10:2-5 contain the descendants of Japheth. Genesis 10:6-20 describe Ham’s descendants, and verses 21-31 are Shem’s descendants. It is important to note that the list of descendants are not necessarily exhaustive. 1 Chronicles 1:5-23 also provides a list of the descendants of Noah’s three sons. The lists are identical and include some alternate spellings of some names. That is typical of the genealogies in Scripture.
As stated earlier, critics of the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, claim the Bible contains errors in verses 15 and 22. So, here are discussions of each criticism.
Criticism of the Hitties (v. 15)
The ancient historical records of Genesis 10:6, 15 tell us that Canaan was a distant descendant of Ham.
Canaan became the father of Sidon, his firstborn, and Heth. Genesis 10:15 (NASB)
Then we are told that Canaan was the father of Sidon and Sidon was the father of Heth. Heth’s sons were called Hithites. As a result, critics state that Genesis 10 is in error because they believe the Hethites were Indo-European speaking and were not descendants of Sidon. But such a conclusion assumes that all available information about the Hittites has been discovered by genealogists. Critics of the Bible have frequently claimed the Bible to be in error, only to be embarrassed later when archaeologists unearthed evidence that indicated that they wrong and the Bible was accurate.
John Walvoord and Roy Zuck make this helpful comment about the Hittites.
Hittites (het, “Heth”) is problematic, but may refer to a pocket of Hittites from the early movements of tribes. The Jebusites dwelt in Jerusalem. Amorites was a general reference to western Semites, but here points to a smaller ethnic group in the mixed population of Canaan. The other seven Canaanite tribal names are less problematic; they were tribes that settled in Lebanon, Hamath on the Orontes River, and all through the land. Their listing is significant after the passage pronouncing the curse on Canaan (9:25- 27).1
The quote refers to seven Canaanite tribes which are the Amorites, Hitties, Jebusites, Girgasthites, Hives, Sinites, and Zeramarites. The message of the quote is that the Hittites referred to here may have originally been a small group. Then with the passage of time changes occurred in language, culture, and the genetic makeup of the people.
Archaeologists cannot prove this is an impossibility. Then later the Hitties were actually Indo-European-speaking. Since archaeology has repeatedly proven the critics of the Bible to be wrong, it is wiser for them to conclude that Genesis 10:15 is most likely accurate.
Criticism of the Elamites (v. 22)
Another criticism of Genesis 10 is that verse 22 indicates that Elam was a descendant of Shem.
The sons of Shem were Elam and Asshur and Arpachshad and Lud and Aram. Genesis 10:22 (NASB)
The criticism about the Elamites is that they were non-Semitic, and yet they appear as a descendant of Shem. Kenneth Mathews summarizes the criticism and provides a solution in his book on Genesis Vol. 1A in the The New American Commentary. He says,
Elam is located in the mountainous region east of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley (modem southwest Iran). Its ancient capital was Susa (e.g., Esth 1:2-5; Dan 8:2). Among the coalition of eastern kings whom Abraham routed was the king of Elam (14:1,9). Problematic for modern readers is the presence of Elam in the Shemite lineage since the language is non-Semitic. Its placement in the Shemite branch cannot be solely for cultural or geographical reasons since on this basis we would expect such Hamitic peoples as Babylon, Assyria, and Canaan under Shem, not Ham. More reasonably, it may be posited that the earliest settlers of Elam were Semites who never became the dominant group in the region. Asshur ( = Akk. assur) is located on the upper Tigris River in northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq). Its name was appropriated for the region and inhabitants (i.e., Assyria). It also appears in the Ham lineage, where the NIV translates “Assyria” ( 10: 11 ).2
Merrill Unger adds,
The Elamites racially were distinct from the Semites, but in very early times Elam was peopled by Semitic stock; however, later non-Semitic Elamites gained mastery over the country.3
Both of these quotes suggest that the Elamites were early settlers in the geographic region in the upper Tigris-Euphrates Valley. But they never became the dominant peoples.
Conclusion
One should not assume that we can understand all of the details from ancient times. When the archaeology discoveries do not correspond to the biblical record, we should conclude that the Bible is correct because its Author, God Almighty, is never wrong. As already stated, the liberal critics of the Bible have repeatedly claimed the Bible was in error since the 1800s, only to be embarrassed by later archaeological findings that proved the Bible is correct. Bodie Hodge, the author of Tower of Babel, says,
Sources outside the Bible can never be trusted with certainty. There is naturally a rank, though. For example, historians’ comments can be trusted far more than mythology, legends, and oral tradition. This is not to say that there is no truth to these others, but that requires discernment. Then there are genetic studies to link people groups and language families that also have merit but are not worthy of the level of Scripture or, at this stage, not even worthy to compete with historians’ comments, but they do have some value. After all, people can conquer other people groups ( or bring back captives, or migrate, and so on) and intermixing can cause strange results in genetics studies as well as affect language. The language of Rome, for example, has affected much of Europe due to the Roman Empire’s influence.Hodge, p. 115
The conclusion is that we are wiser to trust the accuracy of Genesis 10 than its critics. The Bible’s authors lived much closer to its events than we do!
References:
1. John F. Walvoord and Roy B Zuck. Genesis. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Chariot Victor Publishing. 1985. p. 43.
2. Kenneth Matthews. Genesis Vol. 1 A. The New American Commentary. B&H Publishing. 2005. p. 463.
3. Merril Unger. Archaeology and the Old Testament. Zondervan Publishing Co. 1974. p. 97.
4. Bodie Hodge. Tower of Babel. Master Books. March 2021. p. 115.
Suggested Links:
Does the Bible contain errors, discrepancies, or contradictions?Why are skin colors different?
Gog and Magog — Which countries are ancient Gog and Magog?