1 Chronicles 1:5-7 -

B. LIST OF SONS AND GRANDSONS OF JAPHETH . After the mention of Noah's three sons, in the order of their age (though some on slender ground think Ham the youngest), this order, as in Genesis 10:2 , is reversed; and the compiler, beginning with Japheth , the youngest, apparently with the view of disposing of what his purpose may not so particularly require, gives the names of seven sons and seven grandsons, viz. three through Gomar , the eldest son, and four through Javan , the fourth son. These fourteen names are identical in the Authorized Version with the list of Genesis 10:2-4 . The Septuagint, though not identical in the spelling of the four names Madai , Tiras , Tarshish , and Kittim , shows no material differences in the two places. In the Hebrew, according to the text and edition consulted, very slight variations are found in the orthography of Tubal ( וְתֻבָּל here for וְתֻבָל ) and Tarshish ( וְתַרְשִׁישָׁח here for וְתַרְשִׁישׁ )and in the adoption of Riphath and Dodanim in this book for Diphath and Rodanim. The names Kittim and Dodanim look less like names of individuals than of such family, tribe, or nation as descended from the individual. At the close of this short enumeration, we have .in Genesis the statement, "By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations." It is evident here also that, whether the compiler borrowed from the Book of Genesis itself, or from some common source open to both, his objects are not exactly the same. Time and the present position and condition of that part of his people for which he was writing governed him, and dictated the difference. Accordingly we do not pause here on the colonizings and the fresh seats and habitations of the sons and grandsons of Japheth. The subject, one of extreme interest, and the threads of it perhaps not so hopelessly lost as is sometimes thought, belongs to the place in Genesis from which the above verse is cited. It may, however, be written here that the rather verbose disquisitions of Joseph Mede are neither altogether unin-retorting nor in some parts of them unlikely. They form Discourses 47, 48, bk. 1..