Genealogies of Genesis
| Missing image Creationism.jpg Creationism |
|
The genealogies of Genesis record the descendents of Adam and Eve as given in the first book of the Bible, Genesis. The enumerated genealogy in chapters 5 and 11 reports the lineal male descent to Abraham, including the age at which each patriarch fathered his named son and the number of years he lived thereafter. A separate genealogy for Cain is given in Chapter 4. The genealogy in chapter 10 recording the male descendants of Noah is known as the Table of Nations.
| Contents |
Enumerated genealogy
Two versions of the enumerated genealogy exist, that in the Latin Vulgate Bible (accepted by Western Christians, including Roman Catholics and Protestants) and that in the Greek Septuagint Bible (accepted by Eastern Christians, including Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Ethiopic, Jacobite, and Armenian). The Vulgate was published by Jerome in 405 based on a Tanakh compiled near the end of the first century, whereas the Septuagint was reputedly written by seventy translators in Egypt near the middle of the third century BC based on an earlier version of the Tanakh. Both have been translated into numerous vernacular languages — a prominent example based upon the Vulgate is the King James Version of the Bible. This genealogy, along with other biblical and secular events, was used to fix the Creation of the world. But the patriarchs were often 100 years older at the birth of their named son in the Septuagint than they were in the Vulgate, resulting in an Eastern Creation approximately 1500 years earlier than the Western Creation. The precise difference between the two genealogies is 1466 years. The most famous Western Creation is that of Archbishop James Ussher, 4004 BC, whereas the most famous Eastern Creation is the epoch of the Byzantine Era, 5509 BC.
The following table lists the patriarchs that appear in the Vulgate and the Septuagint, but their names are spelt as they appear in the King James Version of the Bible. Their year of birth (year of creation for Adam) is given in the world era appropriate to the Vulgate or the Septuagint (AM = Anno Mundi = in the year of the world). Also given is each patriarch's age at the birth of his named son and his age at death. The Septuagint has one more patriarch after the Flood, Cainan, than does the Vulgate. Methuselah survived the Flood according to the Septuagint (but not the Vulgate), even though he was not on Noah's Ark.
| Vulgate | Septuagint | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patriarch | Birth | Son | Death | Birth | Son | Death |
| Adam | AM 1 | 130 | 930 | AM 1 | 230 | 930 |
| Seth | 130 | 105 | 912 | 230 | 205 | 912 |
| Enos | 235 | 90 | 905 | 435 | 190 | 905 |
| Cainan | 325 | 70 | 910 | 625 | 170 | 910 |
| Mahalaleel | 395 | 65 | 895 | 795 | 165 | 895 |
| Jared | 460 | 162 | 962 | 960 | 162 | 962 |
| Enoch | 622 | 65 | 365 | 1122 | 165 | 365 |
| Methuselah | 687 | 187 | 969 | 1287 | 167 | 969 |
| Lamech | 874 | 182 | 777 | 1454 | 188 | 753 |
| Noah | 1056 | 500 | 850 | 1642 | 500 | 850 |
| Shem | 1556 | 100 | 600 | 2142 | 100 | 600 |
| Flood | 1656 | — | — | 2242 | — | — |
| Arphaxad | 1656 | 35 | 438 | 2242 | 135 | 535 |
| Cainan | — | — | — | 2377 | 130 | 460 |
| Salah | 1691 | 30 | 433 | 2507 | 130 | 460 |
| Eber | 1721 | 34 | 464 | 2637 | 134 | 404 |
| Peleg | 1755 | 30 | 239 | 2771 | 130 | 339 |
| Reu | 1785 | 32 | 239 | 2901 | 132 | 339 |
| Serug | 1817 | 30 | 230 | 3033 | 130 | 330 |
| Nahor | 1847 | 29 | 148 | 3163 | 179 | 304 |
| Terah | 1876 | 70 | 205 | 3342 | 70 | 275+ |
| Abraham | 1946 | — | — | 3412 | — | — |
Cain's genealogy
Three of Adam and Eve's children are named. The main genealogy is via Seth, who was born after Cain, the firstborn son, slew his brother Abel. A genealogy for Cain is also given (in chapter 4), with some names similar to those for Seth's descendents. No years are provided, so the following table simply lines the descendents up by generation.
| Cain's line | Seth's line |
|---|---|
| Adam and Eve | |
| Cain | Seth |
| Enoch | Enos |
| Irad | Cainan |
| Mehujael | Mahalaleel |
| Methushael | Jared |
| Lamech | Enoch |
| Jabal, Jubal, and Tubal-Cain | Methuselah |
| Lamech | |
| Noah | |
Although Cain's line is taken no further, it implies that it continues beyond that by stating that the terminal sons were the ancestors of those who practice various trades. It also provides the names of Lamech's two wives, Adah and Zillah. Jabal and Jubal were the sons of Adah. Jabal was the father of nomads and Jubal of musicians. Tubal-Cain was the son of Zillah and the father of blacksmiths. A daughter of Zillah, Naamah, is also mentioned.
Table of Nations
Noah is reported to have had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Until the 19th century and today among Creationists, Europeans and Asians were understood to be the descendents of Japheth and the Indo-European language family (and were thus called Japhethites). Some have argued that the ancient pagan God Jupiter is actually a deified Japheth, and that the pagan Greeks knew him as 'Iapetos', the Indian Sanskrit as 'Pra-Japati', and the Romans as 'Iu-Pater' or 'Father Jove', which became 'Jupiter'. They argue that Japheth would certainly have appeared to be a god given the extraordinarily long lifespans reported among his generation, and became deified as his descendents fell into ancestor-worship and paganism. Others have argued that the similarity in names is merely coincidence.
Similarly, Africans were understood to be the sons of Ham (and particularly his descendent Cush, as the Cushites are referred to throughout scripture as being the inhabitants of Northeast Africa), and the Yoruba still trace their ancestry through Ham today. Jews and Arabs consider themselves to be sons of Shem (thus, Semites), although they dispute whether Isaac or Ishmael was the legitimate son of Abraham.
Some modern scholars, however, reject the traditional view of historicity, and hold instead that the genealogy reflects the ethnic groupings and changing socio-political alliances of the time and places of the oral traditions, perhaps re-edited at the time of the text's final composition in the 7th century BC. They argue that the genealogies instead reflect the attitudes of the ancient Hebrew authors of the Bible toward their neighbors; that those with whom the authors felt the closest affinity were grouped as descendants of Shem, those with whom there was the deepest animosity were grouped as sons of Ham (whose son Canaan was cursed by Noah), and the foreigners who were invading their shores from across the sea (Yavan) or from the East (Medes) were identified with Japheth. This latter identification is corroborated by Genesis 9:27, "God shall enlarge Japheth (literally: 'beautify Japheth'), and he shall dwell in the house of Shem." In Hebrew, this verse uses a pun on the name Japheth, which comes from the Semitic root Y-Ph-T and means beauty: the verse is apparently a reference to the cultural innovations that these newcomers brought to the region.
Disputed genealogies
While some of the eponymous ancestors of the peoples mentioned in these lists are easily identifiable, intended identities of others are subjects of dispute among scholars.
In some instances, similar names reappear in different contexts. Some scholars interpret this is merely being the use of the same name for different people. Other scholars assert that this reflects contradictory traditions among the Hebrew tribes compiled into the same text.
"Dodanim" (10:4) (another grammatical plural) is listed as a son of Javan (possibly identified with the Ionians) the son of Japheth, yet "Dodanim" is also the plural form of Dedan (Genesis 10:7), who appears as the son of Cush, who was the son of Ham. Similar replication of names occurs with Ashur, the legendary eponymous ancestor of the Assyrians, and the name also appears in the Ham narrative (10:11) and as a descendant of Shem (10:22). Also Aram the son of Shem is not to be confused with the Aramean descendants of Kemuel (22:21) line. It appears also that places were named for people, or shared names (e.g. Tarshish, or Tarsus), and personal names (e.g. Nimrod) also appear in the groupings.
The historicity of the genealogies
The importance of the genealogies (toledot. "generations") emphasized by Ezra's insistence on racial purity of the High Priest resulted in genealogical scrolls being kept in Jerusalem. They are mentioned by Josephus, and their loss in AD 70 was considered disastrous. A priest was required to demonstrate the purity of the pedigree of his prospective bride as far back as her great-great-grandfather and great-great-grandmother. In the case of marriage with a daughter of Levi or of Israel his scrutiny had to extend a degree further, perhaps a sign that more relaxed attitudes toward marrying non-Jews had prevailed in the northern kingdom. The Pharisees emphasized the nobility of learning as opposed to the priestly-caste nobility insisted upon by the Sadducees.
The genealogies as recorded in Genesis were assuredly intended not as myth, but as history. The matter-of-fact style of writing, the degree of detail, the fact that ages are given for when fathers had sons and when they died, are all presented as history by the writers of Genesis. The New Testament authors of Matthew (1:1-17) and Luke (3:23-38) also took the traditional genealogies as history and applied them in tracking Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham and Adam respectively.
In the beginning of the 20th century, academic opinion regarding the historicity of the genealogies split. For example:
It is thus evident that the Table of Nations contains no scientific classification of the races of mankind. Not only this, however, it also offers no historically true account of the origin of the races of mankind." (Driver 114).
The so-called Table of Nations remains, according to all results of monumental explorations, an ethnographic original document of the first rank which nothing can replace." (Kautzsch 234).
In the early 20th century, some anthropologists determined that ethnicity is a construct, as argued by Herodotus, and that the genealogies of Genesis were primitive efforts towards creating an ethnology that would express the degrees of alienness or relatedness the authors of such genealogies sensed among those neighboring peoples of whom they were aware. For instance:
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 been preserved at the time when the chapter was written. The nations and tribes existed: and imaginary ancestors were afterwards 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 ancestor Hellen, who had three sons, Dorus and 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. (Driver 112).
Anthropologists of this vein assert that some genealogies in the flood myth of Greek mythology are analogous to those in Genesis: in them, Hellen, the son of Deucalion, the Greek Noah, and eponym of the Hellenes had three sons, named Dorus and Æolus, the ancestors of the Dorians and Aeolians, and Xuthus, whose sons Achæus and Ion, were the progenitors of the Achæans and Ionians. In Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity (Malkin 2001), the subject is shifting Hellenic perceptions of ethnicity, but the discourse throws light on motivations for the genealogies of Genesis.
Arguments are also made that comparisons may also be made with the Welsh folk genealogies that trace their king-lines back to Troy.
Other scholars, however, continue to hold that the Table of Nations is the most historically accurate account of early human history available, and reject the above analysis, arguing that "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." They note that Genesis is unique among ancient genealogies in its historical and objective style. For instance:
Egyptians and Phoenicians, Assyrians and Babylonians, even Indians and Persians, had a certain measure 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 of 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." (Dillmann 314).
Scholars also note the text's remarkably neutral tone, arguing:
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 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, but 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 Canaanite, or even an Arab." (Custance, Ch. 1)
The issue of the purpose of the historicity of the genealogies therefore remains a subject of dispute among biblical scholars.
Sources
- Hall, Jonathan, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity Cambridge U.Press, 1997.
- Malkin, Irad, editor, Ancient Perceptions of Greek Ethnicity in series Center for Hellenic Studies Colloquia, 5. Harvard University Press, 2001. Reviewed by Margaret C. Miller in Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2002
- Driver, S. R., The Book of Genesis, Westminister Commentaries, 3rd edition, London, UK, Methuen, 1904.
- Kautzsch, E.F.: quoted by James Orr, "The Early Narratives of Genesis," in The Fundamentals, Vol. 1, Los Angeles, CA, Biola Press, 1917.
- Dillmann, A., Genesis: Critically and Exegetically Expounded, Vol. 1, Edinburgh, UK, T. and T. Clark, 1897, 314.
- Custance, Arthur C., The Roots of the Nations.[1]
External links
- Latin Vulgate and English Douay-Rheims
- English Septuagint
- King James Version and Revised Standard Version
- World Ancestry — Roots In Antiquity
- Hasel, G.F., 1980. "The meaning of the chronogenealogies of Genesis 5 and 11", Origins 7(2):53–70.
- Williams, P., 1998. "Some remarks preliminary to a biblical chronology", TJ 12(1):98–106, .
- Sarfati, J., 2003, "Biblical chronogenealogies" TJ 17(3):14–18.