Table of Nations: Genesis 10: 22
Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:06 pm
Table of Nations: Genesis 10: 22
Genesis 10: 22 has long baffled analysts, as it has been interpreted [erroneously] to assert that all of the following disparate peoples are descendants of Noah’s son Shem, few of whom are, oddly enough, Semitic peoples: Elam [the forerunner of modern Iran, whose people are not Semites], Assyria, Arpachshad [considered inexplicable, but not Semitic], the Lydians from Anatolia [who are not Semites], and the Arameans.
Let’s try a new approach to this age-old problem, and see if we can solve this 3,000-year-old Biblical mystery.
It would make sense if, contra received opinion, the Biblical author of the Table of Nations portrayed both (i) the descendants of the last of Noah’s four grandchildren by Ham, namely Canaan [but not the descendants of Ham’s other three sons], and (ii) Noah’s next-named descendants, namely all of Noah’s descendants by his son Shem, as being the peoples who dominated Canaan and Syria in days of old, that is, during the Bronze Age. To be more specific, the descendants of Canaan dominated Canaan [which is closer geographically to where the descendants of Ham’s other three sons lived]; by contrast, the descendants of Shem dominated Syria [north of Canaan and Lebanon]. By modern reckoning of ethnicity [as opposed to the Table of Nations approach], the two broad classes of peoples who dominated Canaan, and who dominated Syria, in the Bronze Age were in both cases Semites and Hurrians. On this theory of the case, all descendants of Canaan and Shem in the Table of Nations should be Semites or Hurrians, and should not include any other [modern] ethnicity [such as people from east of Babylon or from Anatolia].
For Canaan, per Genesis 10: 15, the Hurrian component is obvious: Heth [which means “Hurrian”], Jebusites, Girgashites and Hivites. All four of these Hurrian groups are portrayed in the Patriarchal narratives as being in Canaan. All [or at least most] of the rest of Canaan’s descendants can be viewed as being Semites. Those are the two groups of peoples who had dominated Canaan and Lebanon in the old days [the Bronze Age]. So far, so good.
But now we come to the key passage: Genesis 10: 22. Can all 5 peoples listed there be viewed as being Hurrians or Semites, and as being associated with Syria [rather than with Canaan]? Let’s examine each one, in reverse order.
5. “Aram”. That’s not a problem, as the Arameans are Semites who hailed from eastern Syria.
4. “Lud” : LWD. That’s not plene spelling, for heaven’s sake [so this cannot be the Lydians]. No, that’s a consonantal vav/W smack dab in the middle of that people’s name. The name of the oldest-known Hurrian god is Lu-ba-da-ga-a$. The last two syllables are honorific Hurrian suffixes, so the basic name of this ancient Hurrian god is Lu-ba-da. Intervocalic B was likely pronounced the same as consonantal vav/W, so this is a fine linguistic match. “Lud” : LWD : Lu-ba-da means the people who in days of old had worshipped the oldest known Hurrian god, Luvada/Lubada/Luwada. [“Lud” has nothing to do with Lydians in Anatolia, who were neither Semites nor Hurrians and never lived in Syria or Canaan, and who as such were essentially of no interest to the Biblical author of Genesis 10: 22.]
3. “Arpachshad” : ’RPK$D. Compare the Hurrian man’s name Arip-ku$ux. Only the ending differs, and Hurrian suffixes are a dime a dozen. So this is another reference to the Hurrians, who had dominated Syria throughout much of the Late Bronze Age.
Please note that neither of the two Hurrian peoples at Genesis 10: 22 is mentioned in the Patriarchal narratives. That means that these two Hurrian peoples [unlike the four Hurrian peoples listed as Canaan’s descendants at Genesis 10: 15-17 above] lived exclusively in the original Hurrian homeland of Syria, not in Canaan or Lebanon.
2. “Asshur”. The Assyrians are a Semitic people, who lived in easternmost Syria. (They also lived just east of Syria as well.) So that’s no problem.
And finally, at long last, for the biggie:
1. “Elam” : ‘YLM. The four Hebrew letters ‘YLM almost certainly reflect an updated plene spelling of an older ‘LM in defective spelling. Those four letters very likely were taken directly from Chedorlaomer’s title [in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives] at Genesis 14: 1. As has been discussed in detail on a recent thread, Chedorlaomer was the king of Ugarit, where mlk ‘lm is a well-attested Ugaritic kingly title. So “Elam” is referencing the mlk ‘lm people, that is, the Semitic/Amorite people of Ugarit in western Syria.
[Neither at Genesis 14: 1 nor at Genesis 10: 22 is there any reference whatsoever to the country of Elam east of Babylon. Such a reference makes no sense in either such Biblical verse, whereas Ugarit makes perfect sense in both places. Here, the Elamites were neither Semites nor Hurrians, nor did they live in Syria (or Canaan) in the Bronze Age. Note also that on at least two occasions in the Bible, ‘YLM is the Hebrew name of a YHWH-fearing Hebrew man, having nothing whatsoever to do with the exotic, far-off non-Semitic people east of southern Mesopotamia.]
* * *
Although Genesis 10: 22 is usually considered senseless, in fact it makes perfect sense. Genesis 10: 22 is referencing the peoples who, in the Bronze Age, had dominated Syria. Historically, that was the Hurrians [mentioned twice, because they had been so important throughout all of Syria], and three groups of Semites in Bronze Age Syria: the Assyrians, the Arameans, and the people of Ugarit [who included many Amorites north of Lebanon]. It all makes logical and historical sense, if we could just jettison, once and for all, the totally erroneous view that ‘YLM always means the country east of Babylon. In fact, as an updated plene spelling of the older ‘LM, at Genesis 10: 22 [and at Genesis 14: 1] that is a reference to the mlk ‘lm Semitic/Amorite people of Ugarit in western Syria.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois
Genesis 10: 22 has long baffled analysts, as it has been interpreted [erroneously] to assert that all of the following disparate peoples are descendants of Noah’s son Shem, few of whom are, oddly enough, Semitic peoples: Elam [the forerunner of modern Iran, whose people are not Semites], Assyria, Arpachshad [considered inexplicable, but not Semitic], the Lydians from Anatolia [who are not Semites], and the Arameans.
Let’s try a new approach to this age-old problem, and see if we can solve this 3,000-year-old Biblical mystery.
It would make sense if, contra received opinion, the Biblical author of the Table of Nations portrayed both (i) the descendants of the last of Noah’s four grandchildren by Ham, namely Canaan [but not the descendants of Ham’s other three sons], and (ii) Noah’s next-named descendants, namely all of Noah’s descendants by his son Shem, as being the peoples who dominated Canaan and Syria in days of old, that is, during the Bronze Age. To be more specific, the descendants of Canaan dominated Canaan [which is closer geographically to where the descendants of Ham’s other three sons lived]; by contrast, the descendants of Shem dominated Syria [north of Canaan and Lebanon]. By modern reckoning of ethnicity [as opposed to the Table of Nations approach], the two broad classes of peoples who dominated Canaan, and who dominated Syria, in the Bronze Age were in both cases Semites and Hurrians. On this theory of the case, all descendants of Canaan and Shem in the Table of Nations should be Semites or Hurrians, and should not include any other [modern] ethnicity [such as people from east of Babylon or from Anatolia].
For Canaan, per Genesis 10: 15, the Hurrian component is obvious: Heth [which means “Hurrian”], Jebusites, Girgashites and Hivites. All four of these Hurrian groups are portrayed in the Patriarchal narratives as being in Canaan. All [or at least most] of the rest of Canaan’s descendants can be viewed as being Semites. Those are the two groups of peoples who had dominated Canaan and Lebanon in the old days [the Bronze Age]. So far, so good.
But now we come to the key passage: Genesis 10: 22. Can all 5 peoples listed there be viewed as being Hurrians or Semites, and as being associated with Syria [rather than with Canaan]? Let’s examine each one, in reverse order.
5. “Aram”. That’s not a problem, as the Arameans are Semites who hailed from eastern Syria.
4. “Lud” : LWD. That’s not plene spelling, for heaven’s sake [so this cannot be the Lydians]. No, that’s a consonantal vav/W smack dab in the middle of that people’s name. The name of the oldest-known Hurrian god is Lu-ba-da-ga-a$. The last two syllables are honorific Hurrian suffixes, so the basic name of this ancient Hurrian god is Lu-ba-da. Intervocalic B was likely pronounced the same as consonantal vav/W, so this is a fine linguistic match. “Lud” : LWD : Lu-ba-da means the people who in days of old had worshipped the oldest known Hurrian god, Luvada/Lubada/Luwada. [“Lud” has nothing to do with Lydians in Anatolia, who were neither Semites nor Hurrians and never lived in Syria or Canaan, and who as such were essentially of no interest to the Biblical author of Genesis 10: 22.]
3. “Arpachshad” : ’RPK$D. Compare the Hurrian man’s name Arip-ku$ux. Only the ending differs, and Hurrian suffixes are a dime a dozen. So this is another reference to the Hurrians, who had dominated Syria throughout much of the Late Bronze Age.
Please note that neither of the two Hurrian peoples at Genesis 10: 22 is mentioned in the Patriarchal narratives. That means that these two Hurrian peoples [unlike the four Hurrian peoples listed as Canaan’s descendants at Genesis 10: 15-17 above] lived exclusively in the original Hurrian homeland of Syria, not in Canaan or Lebanon.
2. “Asshur”. The Assyrians are a Semitic people, who lived in easternmost Syria. (They also lived just east of Syria as well.) So that’s no problem.
And finally, at long last, for the biggie:
1. “Elam” : ‘YLM. The four Hebrew letters ‘YLM almost certainly reflect an updated plene spelling of an older ‘LM in defective spelling. Those four letters very likely were taken directly from Chedorlaomer’s title [in the truly ancient Patriarchal narratives] at Genesis 14: 1. As has been discussed in detail on a recent thread, Chedorlaomer was the king of Ugarit, where mlk ‘lm is a well-attested Ugaritic kingly title. So “Elam” is referencing the mlk ‘lm people, that is, the Semitic/Amorite people of Ugarit in western Syria.
[Neither at Genesis 14: 1 nor at Genesis 10: 22 is there any reference whatsoever to the country of Elam east of Babylon. Such a reference makes no sense in either such Biblical verse, whereas Ugarit makes perfect sense in both places. Here, the Elamites were neither Semites nor Hurrians, nor did they live in Syria (or Canaan) in the Bronze Age. Note also that on at least two occasions in the Bible, ‘YLM is the Hebrew name of a YHWH-fearing Hebrew man, having nothing whatsoever to do with the exotic, far-off non-Semitic people east of southern Mesopotamia.]
* * *
Although Genesis 10: 22 is usually considered senseless, in fact it makes perfect sense. Genesis 10: 22 is referencing the peoples who, in the Bronze Age, had dominated Syria. Historically, that was the Hurrians [mentioned twice, because they had been so important throughout all of Syria], and three groups of Semites in Bronze Age Syria: the Assyrians, the Arameans, and the people of Ugarit [who included many Amorites north of Lebanon]. It all makes logical and historical sense, if we could just jettison, once and for all, the totally erroneous view that ‘YLM always means the country east of Babylon. In fact, as an updated plene spelling of the older ‘LM, at Genesis 10: 22 [and at Genesis 14: 1] that is a reference to the mlk ‘lm Semitic/Amorite people of Ugarit in western Syria.
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois