Biblical Hebrew Forum

["JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.apu.ac.uk>]

Karl:
The chapter and verse divisions came later, much, much later from the
original writing. As a result, it is not uncommon to find that the
modern divisions are wrong.
END QUOTE

JCR: I agree with the reasoning on divisions and when I 
read Genesis (and other texts) I try to ignore the 
arbitrary chapter and verse numbers as much as humanly 
possible.

Karl:
According to an ancient, mid second millennium and before, literary
style, the title and author were appended on the end of a document,
not the beginning as today. It is the presence of that literary style
in Genesis, which was no longer used in Moses' day, that gives a clue
that Moses used older documents in compiling Genesis.
END QUOTE

JCR: How do we know this?

Karl:
You read it as a modern reader would, not as an ancient would have.
END QUOTE

JCR: But what do you make of Genesis 10:1? What follows 
is clearly the account being referred to as prior there 
is no mention of Shem's, Ham's or Japeth's children 
except for the passing mention that Canaan was Ham's
progeny. And this is only supplied so that the context
for the malediction be understood. I hope to read this
as the ancient would but how could an ancient possibly
understand Genesis 10:1 as the close of the flood
account rather the beginning of the account of Shem's,
Ham's and Japheth's offspring which follows when the
wording explicitly points us in that direction?

I ask out of genuine interest and accept that my first
instinct may well be wrong.

James C. Read
UK