Shem's age

Greg · #1 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 07:31 PM

I was corresponding with someone a while back who believes that the Bible is filled with inconsistencies. One of his arguments to support this opinion of his has to do with Shem's age as shown us in Genesis. It just seemed that no matter what I explained to him, he was dead set on sticking to his interpretation. He writes:

Quote:

There are inconsistencies in the Bible, because, although God divinely inspired it, men wrote it. Genesis 5:32 states that Noah was 500 years old when he fathered Shem. Genesis 7:6 states that Noah was 600 years old when the flood occurred, which would make Shem 100 years old at the time of the flood. However, Genesis 12:10 states that Shem was 100 years old when he became the father of Arpachshad "two years after the flood". Shem could not be both 100 at the time of the flood, and two years after the flood.

The thing that I noticed right away when I read that is that he is taking Genesis 5:32 to mean that Noah was 500 years old when all three of his sons were born. IOW, Noah's sons were triplets. But this verse does not say that. It simply says that he fathered his three sons after he was 500 years old.

Taking the other two verses into account, it seems that we could rightly conclude that Shem was actually born when Noah was 502 years old, and that Shem was 98 years old when he fathered Arpachshad.

Would this be a fair conclusion from these three verses?

Contra_Mundum · #2 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 08:44 PM

Yes, that is a completely coherent position, and what's more, its far more likely than a triple-birth.

The first statement reads exactly like a generality about the size of a man's (Noah's) family, and his given age is a convenient "round" number. The statement about Shem's son, and his age at the time of his birth, and its correlation to the time of the flood is a precise time reference.

If a person is interested in finding "contradictions" in the Bible, he could find far more challenging examples. I think he just heard of this one someplace, and he never even bothered to ponder it for a bit, to see if it really presented a strong challenge. Kind of like the question: "where did Cain get his wife?" Somebody once told him: "Hey, see this obvious flaw? If the Bible makes contradictory statements like this in the first few pages, why believe anything in it?"

What it really is, is the lazy man's approach to dismissing the Bible. If the Bible were so actually so blatantly self-contradictory, people by the millions would NEVER have believed it. They say: "Well you say the same thing about other religion's books: that they are full of contradictions. You don't accept their explanations." But that is a misleading thrust. The rejoinder is to ask the questioner to give an example of 1) a non-Christian apologist's defense of some contradiction in that faith, and submit the defense to an evaluation (rare if one can find it, because apologetics is mostly a Christian-faith enterprise, on account of our faith is tied to the real world time-space framework); or 2) an example of a Christian's attacking a supposed contradiction in another faith-system that is as pedestrian as this atheist's attempt (atheists, when they attack other systems, rely on Chrstian apologetics texts to do their work for them).

Greg · #3 (**permalink**) 08-02-2007, 09:08 PM

Yes, it doesn't seem like he really thought that one through. Even when I explained it this way to him, he just blew it off.

VirginiaHuguenot · #4 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 08:37 AM

Matthew Poole's Synopsis has an interesting discussion of this point:

Quote:

[2448 BC] Verse 32: And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Gen. 6:10; 10:1).

[He was a son of five hundred years] Question: Why was he so much delayed in generating? Response: God so appointed it, because He had decided to save him, with his posterity: but if in the hundredth year he had begun to beget (like others), there would have been so many children of him, that they would not have been able to be kept suitably with necessities in the ark; and many of those would have been wicked,whom it would not have been fitting that they be saved (Lyra). Or, he begat other sons previously, who died before the flood. After the five hundredth year, he begat, that is, he began to beget Shem, Ham, and Japheth successively (Menochius). Or, by the singular providence of God he was sterile (although married) until this time (Rivet). Question: Noah, about to build the ark, was five hundred years old. To mankind were granted one hundred and twenty years of repentance, Genesis 6:3. Yet Noah enters the ark in his six hundredth year, Genesis 7:11. How do these things harmonize? Response: 1. Some say that God cut off twenty years because of their impenitence (Jerome on Daniel 9, Chrysostom On Genesis 25). 2. Others better respond that Noah was not exactly five hundred, but only four hundred and eighty years old, when the oracle was advanced, Genesis 5:32. Question 47 on Exodus of Augustine’s Seven Books of Questions on the Heptateuch1 is to be noted: The divine Scripture is accustomed to express times in such a way that what exceeds the sum of the perfection of the number, or is less than the perfection of the number, is not reckoned (Walther). These things (namely, Noah was a son of five hundred years, etc.) were said by way of a hysteron proteron; for they happen after the sentence concerning the flood was spoken (Vatablus, Rivet).

[He begat Shem] That is, he began to beget (Piscator, Ainsworth), as in Genesis 11:26. The firstborn of these was, 1. not Shem; for he was one hundred years old two years after the flood2 (which began in the six hundredth year of Noah, Genesis 7:11), and, therefore, he was begotten in the five hundred and second year of Noah (Piscator, Hebrews in Lyra, Ainsworth). 2. Not Ham, for he is called the least, Genesis 9:24. Therefore, Japheth was the eldest (Piscator). There is a threefold order of reckoning the heads. 1. Natural, in accordance with the birth order. 2. Personal, in accordance with dignity, as it is here and in Genesis 48:20. 3. Historical, when he is placed last of all from whom the history next is to begin (Junius).

[Matthew Poole's Annotations -- RAM] i.e. He began to beget; God in mercy denying him children till that time, that he might not beget them to the destroyer, that he might have no more than should be saved in the ark; or, having before that time begotten others who were now dead, and having the approaching flood in his view, he began again to beget a seminary for the world. Of these three sons here following, the eldest seems to be Japheth, Genesis 10:21. The second was Shem, as appears because he was but an hundred years old two years after the flood, Genesis 11:10. The youngest Ham, Genesis 9:24. But Shem is first named in order of dignity, as being the progenitor of the church, and of Jesus Christ; and because he and his progeny is the principal subject of this whole history.

1 Quæstionum in Heptateuchum Libri Septem.
2 Genesis 11:10.

Contra_Mundum · #5 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 11:33 AM

It is quite interesting to me that Poole considers Japheth the oldest of the three. And the reference is given: Gen. 10:21. However, that verse seems to tell us pretty plainly that Shem was "older" than Japheth. I am not aware of any exegetical support for the reading of Shem as "older" in the sense of personal dignity. I do not know that one can point to any text that denominates someone as "older" who is naturally "younger".

So, beginning with Gen. 10:21, I say one is obligated to put Shem ahead of Japheth in the birth order. Furthermore, a truly grammatical and exegetical question is "is the comparative adjective being used in the superlative sense?" That is, is "older" being used in the sense of "oldest"? In which we would read Gen. 10:21 as "Shem... the oldest brother of Japheth." Note, that Genesis 10 is the "table of nations," a broad genealogy of all Noah's sons, and one in which the natural order of the sons has almost certainly NOT been followed. Reason: Shem's descendants come last for it is their story that is being carried forward. It is precisely because Shem is listed last, and out of natural order, that the narrator inserts the reminder or informational gloss that Shem is not the YOUNGEST, but in fact is OLDER than the FIRST NAMED brother in Genesis 10: namely Japheth.

One should not be so dismissive of the many times, then, that the sons of Noah are listed--invariably in the order Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Not once (for example, when they are initially introduced) is some other birth order given, followed by a restructuring for pedagogy.

The objection will follow: "But that cannot be the birth order, because Ham is said to be the youngest, Gen. 9:24." Not so fast, my friends. Is that what is being stated? (Note, in passing, in 9:24 the use of the comparative adjective--this time "younger" as opposed to "older"--in the superlative sense: "youngest"). Who is the youngest son of Noah mentioned thus far in the text?

Take a look at Gen. 9:18. Remember, we have not gotten to chapter 10, and the massive list of descendants. Only three sons of Noah (directly) and one grandson, Canaan, are known thus far. And you hardly need to be reminded that a grandson, or even a great-great-(etc)...-great-grandson is still a "son" of such and such a man. Jacob calls Abraham his father in Gen. 32:9. Jesus is called the son of David (Mt. 1:1). So, from the text of Gen. 9, it is plain that Canaan is the YOUNGEST son of Noah, who is in view.

Another objection: But Ham is the "sinner" in the passage. Is he? What does he do that raises a curse on him? He saw his father uncovered, and told his two brothers? What was he supposed to do? Just leave his father that way? He was already compromised. He had already been shamed. His brothers and he could (and did) together devise a way to resolve the scandal. The other two sons could recover their father, and do so avoiding the shame of Ham by walking backwards.

This explanation also handles the secondary problems raised by Noah's curse. 1) HAM isn't cursed, but Canaan. Why is that, if Ham was the one who perpetrated the evil? The evil is not specified. All we know for certain is that the YOUNGEST son mentioned so far was the one responsible, which I submit is Canaan. I believe a likely explanation of the crime was the open publication of such a sad event. The brothers' act of recovery came too late to prevent an open scandal, which Canaan was responsible for proclaiming. His was a sin of contempt and mockery. And it eventually came around back to Noah's ears, "when he knew what his youngest son had done to him...," a patent violation of the 5th commandment.

2) The second problem obviated by understanding that Canaan was the guilty one, and not his father Ham, is more of a theological issue. The assumption is that those who went on the ark with Noah were not only his earthly heirs, his covenant house, but were also his spiritual progeny, the only ones to be saved. Beside himself, there were his wife and his sons wives, "eight souls" (1 Pet. 3:20) who are said to have been saved.

Some commentators have resorted to saying that Canaan was cursed because, though Ham was the sinner, yet he couldn't bear a soul-damning indictment, being one who was "saved," so the curse devolved upon his son--which sets up Canaan's children's defeat by the children of Israel (Shem) later in history. The "devolving curse" explanation is very unsatisfactory to me. It seems obvious to me that the sin should be laid squarely on Canaan's head, and none other. And indeed, his family shows the fruit of an intergenerational godlessness, which is addressed many generations later "when the iniquity of the Amorites" is full at last (Gen. 15:16).

Finally, this explanation puts to rest all the sad, sorry nonsense about Ham's dark-skinned children being cursed. Not that such a view was ever defensible even from the "Ham's sin" perspective, but it ought to be plain that from Genesis' standpoint, there was only one family that was cursed, and that was Canaan, and he was cursed because of his own evil deed, and the curse was fulfilled in Scripture. The dark-skinned peoples of the world were never cursed, nor were any other man or family in this instance.

One last question: was Shem NOT the oldest, because Noah didn't start having children until he was 500, and therefore he must have had his first exactly at 500, and Shem wasn't born until Noah was 502? This, again, seems to be nit-picking the text. Perhaps Noah was 500 when he married, or nearly 501. Then he certainly wouldn't have had a son until he was 501 or 502 at the earliest. Furthermore, all we are told in Genesis 11 about Shem's age is that he was 100 (another round number) which correlates with the age of Noah when his family is apparently begun, and the 100 years up to the flood, Gen. 5 & 6. It isn't impossible for him to be the second son, but makes it more likely that he is the first when all the evidence is weghed.

Calvibaptist · #6 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 12:24 PM

Understanding that I am not a Hebrew scholar...

Linguistically, where Genesis 5:32 has the English word "and" it is actually the form of the waw consecutive, which would indicate as series of events. For example, Genesis 1 is loaded with waw consecutives, which is why the translators often put the phrase "and then..." at the beginning of the verses instead of just "and."

This verse could be translated, "And then Noah was 500 years old, and then Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japeth."

It does not in the least suggest that on Noah's 500'th birthday he had triplets.

VirginiaHuguenot · #7 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 01:34 PM

A few more commentators worth consulting:

John Calvin on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

That he had, indeed, survived his five hundredth year before Shem was born, will be evident from the eleventh chapter (Genesis 11:1); concerning the other two nothing is known with certainty, except that Japheth was the younger. 258

258 This inference, that Japheth was the younger son, Calvin seems to have drawn from a translation of Genesis 10:21, different from our own. In our version Shem is there called “the brother of Japheth the elder.” But commentators are generally agreed that the English version is right. It not only gives the more natural sense of the original, but is confirmed by collateral testimony. For it is clear that Noah began to have children in his five hundredth year. Shem was one hundred years old two years after the flood, and therefore was born when his father was five hundred and two years old. Some one, then, of Noah’s sons must have been born before this. Now we are told that Ham was the younger son, (Genesis 9:24). Therefore Japheth must have been his first-born. — See Patrick’s and Bush’s Commentaries, and Wells’ Geography of the Old Testament. — Ed.

John Calvin on Genesis 10.21:

Quote:

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. Nor 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

320 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.

Matthew Henry on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

II. His children, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. These Noah begat (the eldest of these) when he was 500 years old. It should seem that Japheth was the eldest (ch. x. 21), but Shem is put first because on him the covenant was entailed, as appears by ch. ix. 26, where God is called the Lord God of Shem. To him, it is probable, the birth-right was given, and from him, it is certain, both Christ the head, and the church the body, were to descend. Therefore he is called Shem, which signifies a name, because in his posterity the name of God should always remain, till he should come out of his loins whose name is above every name; so that in putting Shem first Christ was, in effect, put first, who in all things must have the pre-eminence.

Matthew Henry on Genesis 10.21:

Quote:

2. He was the brother of Japheth the elder, by which it appears that, though Shem is commonly put first, he was not Noah'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. Note, (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.

Philip Henry on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

2. His children. Three only are mentioned, -- Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Whether he had more or not, doth not appear. It should seem that Japheth was the eldest; (see chap. x.21; ) but Shem is named first, -- to him perhaps the birthright being given, -- because from him the Messiah -- the head, and the church -- the body, (Colos. i.18,) were to come. So that in putting Shem first, Christ was in effect put first, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence.

John Gill on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

Genesis 5:32

Ver. 32. And Noah was five hundred years old,.... Or "the son of five hundred years" {f}; he was in his five hundredth year: it can hardly be thought that he should live to this time a single life, and have no children born to him, which he might have had, but were dead; though some think it was so ordered by Providence, that he should not begin to procreate children until of this age, because it being the will of God to save him and his family from the flood, had he began at the usual age he might have had more than could conveniently be provided for in the ark; or some of them might have proved wicked, and so would deserve to perish with others:

and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth; not together, but one after another; and since Ham was the younger son, see Ge 9:24 and Shem was an hundred years old two years after the flood, Ge 11:10 he must be born in the five hundred and second year of his father's age; so that it seems most probable that Japheth was the eldest son, and born in the five hundred and first year of his age; though Shem is usually mentioned first, because of his superior dignity and excellency, God being in an eminent manner the God of Shem, Ge 9:26 and from whom the Messiah was to spring, and in whose line the church of God was to be continued in future ages. The name of Japheth is retained in Greek and Latin authors, as Hesiod {g} Horace {h}, and others {i}, by whom he is called Japetos and Japetus.

{f} hnv twam vmx Nb "filius quingentorum annorum", Pagninus, Montanus, &c. {g} "Theogonia prope principium et passim". {h} Carmin. l. 1. Ode 3. {i} Apollodorus de Deorum Orig. l. 1. p. 2, 4. Ovid. Metamorph. l. 1. Fab. 2.

John Gill on Genesis 10.21:

Quote:

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 Noah'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 Noah was five hundred years old when he began to beget sons, Ge 5:32 he was six hundred when he went into the ark, Ge 7:11 two years after the flood Shem begat Arphaxad, when he was one hundred years old, and Noah six hundred and two, Ge 11:10 so that Shem must be born when Noah 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, Ge 9:24.

even to him were [children] born, who are reckoned as follow.

{d} Hist. Relig. Pers. c. 2. p. 47, 48. {e} lwdgh tpy yxa "fratre Japheth majore". V. L. Samar. Syr. Ar. "frater major natu ipsius Japheth", Tigurine version; "fratri Japheti majori", Cocceius; so some in Vatablus.

Dutch Annotations on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

32. And Noach was five hundred years old: [Heb. a Son of five hundred years, i.e. Noach was so many years old, or was entering into the five hundredth year of his age. This phrase is very frequent in Scripture; See below chap. 7.6. and 11.10 and 17.17 &c.] and Noach begat Sem, Cham, and Japhet. [i.e. he then began to beget: as chap. 11.26 for these three Sons were not born in one year; but first Japeth, and then Sem, and at last Cham. See chap. 9.24. and chap. 11.10. Sem is put here in the first place, as a pious progenitor of our Lord Jesus Christ after the flesh, together with all the Hebrewes. See chap. 10.21. &c.]

Dutch Annotations on Genesis 10.21:

Quote:

3. See further of Sem above, ch. 6. v.10.] brother of Japheth, [Named here in particular, as having had a share in the blessing pronounced by God upon Sem, of which Cham was excluded. See chap. 6.10.] the greater. [i.e. the eldest.]

English ("Westminster") Annotations (John Ley) on Genesis 10.21:

Quote:

the brother of Japheth the elder] Hebr. the great. For the Hebrew language hath no comparative degree, but useth the preposition Min, or the article Ha for emphaticall expression, as in the word Haggadhol, Gadhol signifying great not greater; and the Hebrews wanting such difference of termination in cases as the Greeks and Latines have, the word here used and properly Englished great, and commonly greater, may be rendred either in the Genitive case, and so it maketh Japheth the elder, or in the Ablative cases, and so it maketh Shem the elder: and from this ambiguitie in the Originall ariseth diversitie of opinions concerning the senioritie of these three sonnes; for some from hence rendring the adjective in the Ablative case, and so in construction agreeing with Shem, and from the ordinary rehearsall of them in the Scripture, (wherein Shem is placed first in order) take him to be the eldest; others, because the Originall Text will also admit of the adjective to be taken in the Genitive case, and so joyned with Japhet, make him the elder: and this exposition may have the prerogative of an elder brother to be preferred before the other, which may be proved thus. 1. Cham was not the eldest, for he is called, Noahs younger sonne, Chap. 9.24. according to the Hebr. His little sonne. 2. Shem was not the eldest, for 1. Noah begat (that is, began to beget) his three sonnes, when he was five hundred yeares of age, Chap. 5.32. 2. In the sixe hundreth yeare of Noah, the second moneth of that yeare, and the seventeenth day of that moneth came the flood, Chap. 7.11. 3. Two yeares after the flood Shem (when he begat Arphaxad) was a hundred yeares old, Chap. 11.10. therefore Shem was begotten in the five hundred and second yeare of Noah. 4. And if Noah began his fruitfulnesse in the yeare five hundred, and begat one of this three sonnes that yeare (as hath been noted out of Gen. Chap. 5.32.) it must needs be Japhet, and so he must be elder then either Shem, or Cham; yet Shem might be usually named before them both, because he had the honour to be Patriarch of the nationall Church of the Hebrews, so much honoured and favoured by God himselfe, according to the precedent Annot. (so that his precedencie before Japhet, is by order of dignity, Chap. 9.26, 27. not of nature; and so is Abraham set before Nahor and Haran, Gen. Chap. 11.26. and Jacob before Esau, Gen. 28.5 and Ephraim before Manasseh, Gen. 48.20. though neither Abraham, nor Jacob, nor Ephraim were elder then their brethren before whom they are named. See Annot. on Chap. 11. vers. 27.

Robert Candlish, The book of Genesis expounded in a series of discourses:

Quote:

p. 177: Japheth is mentioned first, as being the elder brother.
...
p. 182: It is to be observed, however, that Abram's standing first in the list is no proof that he was the first-born; any more than Shem's being mentioned first among Noah's sons (chap. vi.10) proves him to be the senior. On the contrary, as we have reason to conclude that Japeth was the elder brother, so Abram, though named first among Terah's children, may have been actually the youngest.

John Trapp on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

At length he hath Japheth first; though Shem be first named, because he was in dignity preferred before his brother, to be grandfather to the Messiah.

Simon Patrick on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

It doth not follow that Shem was the Eldest of these Three, because he is here, and every where else in this Book mentioned first: For I shall show plainly in its due place that Japheth was the Eldest. (X.21.) Scaliger indeed would have this a settled Rule, that, Hume Ordinem Filii in Scriptura habent, quem illis natura dedit. That Children are placed in Scripture, according to the Order which Nature hath given them. But it is apparent from many Instances, that the Scripture hath regard to their Dignity otherways, and not to the Order of their Birth. As Abraham is mentioned before Nahor and Haran, merito excellentiae, with respect to his Excellence (as St. Austin speaks) to which God raised him, though he were not the Eldest Son of Terah, Gen. XI.28. Thus Jacob is mentioned before Esau, [i]Mal. I.1. and Isaac before Ishmael, I Chron. I.28. Thus Shem's Eminence in other respects, placed him before Japhet, to whom he was inferiour in the order of Nature: As appears even from their Geneaology both in Gen. X. and I Chron. I: where Shem's Posterity are placed above those of both his other Brothers.

Simon Patrick on Genesis 9.24:

Quote:

And [Canaan] is here called his younger or little Son, (nothing being more common than to call those Sons of another, who were his Grand-Children, as Cousin-Germans are called Brothers) for Ham was neither little, nor his younger Son; but the middle-most, as he is always placed. Nor doth it seem at all pertinent to the matter, to mention the Order of his Birth; but very fit, if he spake of the Grandson, to distinguish him from the rest. And what follows is a farther proof of it.

Simon Patrick on Genesis 10.21:

Quote:

The Brother of Japhet the Elder.] Scaliger translates these words, Sem the Elder Brother of Japhet: But the he which is prefixt to Gadol, i.e. Greater, plainly directs us to refer the word Greater or Elder to him who was last spoken of, viz. Japhet. Who may be plainly proved to have been the Eldest Son of Noah, from this observation, That Noah was Five hundred years old, before any of his Three Sons, Sem, Ham, and Japhet were born, V. 32. When he was Six hundred Years old he entred into the Ark with them, VII.11. And when he came out, two Years after the Flood, Shem begat Arphaxad, being then an Hundred Years old, XI.10. and consequently Noah was Six hundred and two. From whence it follows, that Shem was born when Noah was Five hundred and two Years old: And therefore Japhet must be Two Years older than he; for Noah began to have Children when he was Five hundred. But God preferred Shem before him; giving hereby an early demonstration (of which there were many instances afterward) that he would not be confined to the order of Nature, in the disposal of his Favours; which he frequently bestowed upon the younger Children: As he did upon Jacob, and in after-times upon David, who was the youngest and meanest of all his Father's Children.

Contra_Mundum · #8 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 04:02 PM

Calvin's right. The rest are wrong.

Contra_Mundum · #9 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 04:45 PM

The Westminster Annotations (above) lay out the grammatical case for the two readings: "Japheth, the elder," and "Shem, the elder brother of Japheth." The stronger of the two grammatical arguments (IMO) is the latter. And thus read the majority of today's standard translations. The KJV, the NKJ and the NIV have some variation of the former; the Geneva Bible, the ASV, the NAS, the RSV, the ESV take the latter.

As I said, I think the majority of the versions are going with the stronger grammatical argument. For one thing, in that passage, there is NO REASON to make a note on which brother is older, unless the delineation of the genealogy falls outside of the natural birth order. Shem is being listed LAST, but the author wants us to know that this is not the natural order. If Japheth was eldest, this would already be obvious from the order presented. Moses' statment certainly doesn't help place Shem between the other two brothers, if he was concerned to mark him as the second son, ahead of Ham.

Contra_Mundum · #10 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 05:28 PM

The other problem presented by assigning Japheth the older position, is that it utterly fails to explain why then, if the order is being rearranged to mark dignity why Japheth falls to third in the order, and not to the second name EVERY TIME THERE IS A LIST. And if Ham indeed is the youngest son, why is he NEVER last? If the listing is to mark dignity, and yet if his dignity was demoted (on such an interpretation of Gen. 9:20-27) or simply that Japheth's was raised, on what basis does he get listed UP in the second place?

One cannot have it both ways. If the list is based on age, then the presentation is consistent. However, if the list is based on dignity, then the relative dignities of the other two brothers are totally inverted! And the confusion holds true regardless of whether we are talking age or dignity.

Again, if one reads Genesis 10 as it was meant to be read--as the beginning of one of the 11 major textual divisions of the whole book--the purpose and order of the presentation become evident. Moses is inserting one of the historic genealogies into his narrative, and he is making an adjustment from "standard order". He concludes with the material he wants to be freshest in the mind of his readers, once they get past this list, namely Shem's family. He is concerned that the reader understand primarily something about SHEM, not about Japheth. He's past Japheth by the time he starts talking about SHEM. This section is all about SHEM. And he says: "this SHEM is Japheth's (the first name in this extended list) older (or oldest) brother. See, even if Ham isn't the second son but the third, by placing SHEM ahead of Japheth, Moses also places him ahead of Ham as well, which would be the default conclusion from the way they are listed.

The strongest reason that is marshalled in favor of "Japheth, the elder" is that Noah is not said to have any sons until after he was 500 years old, and that must mean he had a son right at 500. Well no, it certainly doesn't. Note well: Gen. 5:32 DOES NOT follow the same manner of statement as the entire previous rest of the chapter, regarding the line of Seth. The pattern is BROKEN, when his sons are described. Instead of "so and so lived X years, and begat Y (or "a son")," we have "And Noah was a son of 500 years" (that right there is a major verbal change from the pattern); then the following, a new sentence really: "And Noah begat" (again, not "and he begat") followed by three sons names (in the order--as always, except for that genealogy--Shem, Ham, and Japheth). The ONLY thing that can be determined from this presentation is that his sons were all born AFTER he lived to 500 years, and hence, it had to be that he fathered them AFTER he was directed to work on the ark, something not explained until chapter 6. And the natural notion is that the sons are listen in birth order. (And if not birth order, but dignity, why is Japheth relegated to the end of the list?)

Contra_Mundum · #11 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 06:16 PM

I just noticed that my view of Noah's curse on Canaan, as the "youngest son" (and Ham's place as 2nd son) has a defender in "Simon Patrick on Genesis 9.24:" (quoted above)

VirginiaHuguenot · #12 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 06:27 PM

Bruce -- Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the birth order. You are not alone in your view, as my research has shown, and I think neither side need "go to the mattresses" over this issue, but respectfully, I find the arguments of Poole, et al. more compelling.

Here are a few more (Reformed and otherwise):

James Ussher, Annals of the World:

Quote:

1556d AM, 2266 JP, 2448 BC

30. Noah was 500 years old when his 1st son, Japheth was born. Ge 5:32 10:21

1558d AM, 2268 JP, 2446 BC

31. Noah's 2nd son, Shem, was born 2 years later because 2 years after the flood, Shem was 100 years old. Ge 11:10

Adam Clarke on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

Verse 32. Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.] From Genesis x. 21; 1 Chron. i. 5, &c., we learn that Japheth was the eldest son of Noah, but Shem is mentioned first, because it was from him, in a direct line, that the Messiah came. Ham was certainly the youngest of Noah's sons, and from what we read, Genesis ix. 22, the worst of them; and how he comes to be mentioned out of his natural order is not easy to be accounted for. When the Scriptures design to mark precedency, though the subject be a younger son or brother, he is always mentioned first; so Jacob is named before Esau, his elder brother, and Ephraim before Manasses. See chap. xxviii. 5; xlviii. 20.

Thomas Vincent, The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly Explained and Proved from Scripture:

Quote:

Q. 57&58.7. Doth not the Scriptures require us to begin the Sabbath in the evening, when it is said, "The evening and the morning were the first day" (Gen 1:5); and, "From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath?"—Lev 23:32.

A. 1. It doth not follow that the evening of the first day, was before the morning, though it be first spoken of; no more than that Shem and Ham were elder than Japheth, because they are reckoned up in order before him. "The sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth" (Gen 10:1); and yet Japheth is called the elder brother.—Gen 10:21. But Moses, reckoning up the works of God on the first day, retires back from the evening to the morning, and saith, they both make up the first day. Surely in the account of all nations, and in Scripture account too, the morning is before the evening. "The same day at evening, being the first day of the week, came Jesus," etc. (John 20:10), where the evening following this day, and on the evening before the day, is called the evening of the same day. 2. That place in Leviticus, concerning the celebration of the Sabbath from evening to evening, hath a reference only unto a ceremonial Sabbath, or day of atonement, on the tenth day of the seventh month, wherein the Israelites were to afflict their souls; but it hath not a reference unto the weekly Sabbath.

Lénart J. de Regt, Participants in Old Testament Texts and the Translator, p. 36:

Quote:

Shem, (Ham,) and Japheth are mentioned in order of centrality as well (Gen. 5:32, 6:10, 7:13, 9:18,23 and 10:1). They are not mentioned in this order according to age but rather according to their relative importance and proximity to the nation of Israel,90 Ham being the ancestor of peoples around Israel (Gen. 10:6-20). In fact, the order of 'Shem, Ham and Japheth' in 10:1 and the order of their genealogies, of which those of Shem come last (10:21-31 and 11:10-26), make Shem, the most important of the brothers, the first as well as the last topic of discussion.91 All this accounts for the order much better than the view that this order is determined by age. Gen. 10:21 provides a clue that not Shem, but Japheth is the eldest brother...'Shem...the brother of Japheth the elder'.92 And if...'his youngest son' in 9:24 is a reference to Ham, only the rule of centrality can account for the fact that he is the second member of the triplet, not the last.

90 Cassuto (1964:198,217)
91 Bailey (1994:274)
92 According to the Septuagint, Symmachus, Luther, KJV, Segond, Buber-Rosenzweig and NIV. If one translates 'Shem...the eldest brother of Japheth' it is hard to see the use of such a statement. If Shem were the eldest brother, this would already have been clear from the order in which the brothers are mentioned, Shem coming first. And Japheth occurs much closer to ... than Shem at the beginning of the verse. So instead, the phrase is another illustration of fratiarchy (Cassuto 1964:165,218).

Contra_Mundum · #13 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 07:30 PM

Right, that's fine Andrew. I understand your motive.

I still think Calvin and other commentators, the Geneva and other translations, etc. have it right at Genesis 10:21. And how one understands the comment (who is "elder") and the genealogies colors the rest of his interpretation. And further, if Canaan is evidently the "youngest son" of Noah to whom the reader has been introduced, then Ham no longer is "obviously" out of place in the "Shem-Ham-Japheth" lists, thus creating a doubt regarding the order starting at Gen. 9:24.

VirginiaHuguenot · #14 (**permalink**) 08-03-2007, 08:24 PM

Here are the comments of Henry Ainsworth, widely recognized as one of the best Hebraists of the 17th century, on Genesis 5.32:

Quote:

Shem, Ham, and Japheth,] Sounded in Hebrew, Shem, Cham, Jepheth: of which Japheth was the eldest, Shem the next, and Ham the youngest; as is evident both by the former note of Shem's age, and by Gen. x.21. and ix.24. But because Shem was in dignity preferred of God, before his brethren, Gen. ix.26, therefore he is first named. The like is in the history of Abram and his brethren, Esau his elder, Gen. xxviii.5. and Ephraim before Manasseh, Gen. xlviii.20.

and on Genesis 10.21:

Quote:

The elder,]Or, the great, to wit, in birth: for Japheth was born before Shem, as is observed in Gen. v.32. and the Greek version here plainly showeth that Japheth was the elder. So greater is used for elder; lesser for younger, in Gen. xxvii.1, 16. and often in the scriptures.