(Genesis 10:1 a) ‘This is the history of the sons of Noah.'
The writer intends us to know the original source of his material, passed down orally through many feasts and finally put into writing we know not when or by whom, but we can be sure that it was very early on, well before the time of Moses who undoubtedly made use of these records.
The Table of Nations And the Explanation of the Divisions (Genesis 10:1 b - Genesis 11:10 a) TABLET V.
‘Shem, Ham and Japheth, to these were born sons after the flood.'
This is in the nature of a heading and is typical of a link connecting with a previous tablet. (Compare ‘Shem, Ham and Japheth' (Genesis 9:18).) Its purpose is to draw attention to the descent of known nations from the three sons of Noah (Genesis 10:32).
When considering the record we must beware of interpreting it by modern assumptions. Tribal groups and nations were extremely complicated affairs, constantly affected by intermarriage, tribal movements in times of crisis, conquest, assimilation, and merger. We only have to consider Israel to recognise the truth of this. Israel began as the clan group round the patriarchs, made up of the core of descendants of Terah, but including a large number of ‘servants' described as their ‘households' (Abraham could call on 318 fighting men - Genesis 14:14), probably from a number of races. These later became known as ‘the children of Israel', but the majority were only children by adoption.
Then when ‘Israel' left Egypt they were joined by a ‘mixed multitude', again of many nations (Exodus 12:38). These too were assimilated into ‘the children of Israel'. So the ‘children of Israel' who entered Canaan were far from being directly children of Jacob, any more than the whole of the nations in this chapter were directly related to only one of the sons of Noah. Israel itself was undoubtedly inclusive of Hamites and Japhites as well as Semites.
It is almost certain that later years saw further assimilation of groups and individuals with Israel, who were mainly of similar background and who were prepared to submit to the Yahweh covenant. This is evidenced in names borne by such people (Uriah the Hittite no doubt looked on himself as a ‘child of Israel'). Thus not all Israelites were strictly Semites even if they had absorbed the Semite culture.
Indeed clans, nations and people were united by treaty, by intermarriage, by conquest, by assimilation and by convenience. This phenomenon was common in the ancient world, as indeed it is today. The terms normally employed for physical relationships (‘sons of'; ‘bore/begat') are all elsewhere used in Babylonian and Hebrew literature to denote such political alliances.
So the direct relationship of later clans and nations to the sons of Noah must not be seen as implying that all such were direct descendants of one particular son. Rather it shows their association in a variety of ways with those who were directly descended from one or the other.
It is certain from the heading of the Table of Nations, ‘These are the descendants (generations, genealogies or family histories - toledoth) of the sons of Noah' (Genesis 10:1), and from the words ‘ These are the families (mispahot) of the sons of Noah according to their generations by their nations (goyim) and from these came the separate nations on earth after the flood' (Genesis 10:32) that the differentiation of nations was the main purpose of the narrative, and the assertion that they were all descended from Noah in one way or another. Further we cannot go.
In many ways the distinctions are based on territory occupied. The writer is seeking to explain to his readers the derivation of the peoples they are aware of. But it would be too simplistic to assume that that was the only basis for distinction. Some are mentioned twice, possibly because of intermarriage and marriage treaties, possibly because of the movement of part of a tribe to a different area. There were many movements of peoples in the Ancient Near East caused by various circumstances, including pressure from other peoples.
However, one main message of this record is that the ‘world', as known to the writer, descended from Noah, was originally of one language, but that as a result of their behaviour towards God and each other, they split up into many nations and languages.
Bearing this in mind we will briefly look at the people and nations described.
The names of Noah's sons are dealt with in reverse order, Shem being the last. This is in order to deal with the other two before concentrating on the one important to the future narrative. This is a feature of the whole of Genesis 1-11 and demonstrates the emphasis on one particular line chosen by God.