Biblical Hebrew Forum

["K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

James:

> 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?
This I learned from scholars of ancient literature, and you can accuse
me of trusting them.

> 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?

The verse in question as it originally ended, according to literary practice:
ואלה תולדת בני־נח שם חם ויפת׃

Then the next section, as it started:
ויולדו להם בנים אחר המבול׃

This is how I read it. This is where the original following document
was either written, or edited to fit by Moses, in relation to the
prior document.

> ....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?
Once one learns about the ancient literary practice, then the wording
explicitly points to the end of the flood account. But to those who
don't know the literary practice, I agree that it looks as if it is an
introduction to the following.

> I ask out of genuine interest and accept that my first
> instinct may well be wrong.
>
> James C. Read
> UK

Of course I could be mistaken in my division of Genesis 10:1. The
original document could very well have ended with the comment that
they fathered children after the flood.

Karl W. Randolph.