In trying to figure out the which branch of Noah’s family the Chinese are descended from, scholars mainly suggest either Ham or Japheth. To start, while it is meant as a short explanation for kids, the article here says that the Chinese are descendants of the Sinites mentioned in Genesis 10:17 as descendants of Ham, and that the “Han” ethnic group is a reference to “Ham.” In addition, the article references Isaiah 49:12) which talks of people from the north, west, and land of “Sinim” with an assumed connection between “Sinim” and China. Investigating these links, while Chinese are often referred to with the prefix “sino-“, and sources here link “Sinim” to China among other places, there is a problem with how old these connections are. First, regarding Isaiah’s mention of “Sinim,” Isaiah lived around 700 BC (see Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 88). Review and Herald Publishing Association.) but the people ruling Egypt didn’t know of “Sinim” as a name for China until 800 years later according to the note on Isaiah 49:12 here. The note on Isaiah 49:12 in Nichol, F. D. (Ed.). (1977). The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary (Vol. 4, p. 279). Review and Herald Publishing Association mentions that Chinese goods have been found in ancient Egypt which is evidence that goods could migrate that far in the ancient world, but states that there’s no link between “Sinim” and “Chin” until well after the time of Isaiah, instead mentioning Egypt as a place Isaiah was referring to in that passage. See also footnote 11 on pg. 404 here arguing that “Sinim” is pointing to the south or the southern part of Egypt and the note on Isaiah 49:12 here which argues against identifying “Sinim” as China. As far as word origins, using “sino-“ as a means of referring to China only dates back to the Greeks of around 2000 years ago and is thought to be a way to refer to the “Hs’in” or “Ch’in”, the first imperial dynasty of China who ruled around 200 BC (see pgs. 1448-1449 here and later show notes on Chinese history). If this etymology is accurate, then the “Ch’in” (also spelled “Qin”) dynasty is the source of the “sino-“ name rather than the “Sinite” descendants of Ham found in Genesis 10:17. Investigating the second point, that the “Han” ethnic group is a memory of the name “Ham,” opens up the question of where the “Han” people got their name. According to the article here the “Han” tribe came from the “Huaxia” ethnic group that formed between the 21st and 8th century BC with the Han dynasty only coming to rule China around 200 BC. While this isn’t conclusive that the “Han” isn’t a memory of “Ham,” it is perhaps odd that they didn’t use the “Han” name all along, but only developed that name later after being previously called the “Huaxia.” Beyond these links, one source also suggests the Hittite descendants of Ham might be connected to “Cathay,” (see pg. 256 here. Researching the origin of “Cathay” at the same etymology dictionary referenced above, pg. 251 links “Cathay” as a name for the Khitan Tartars, a group that ruled only about 1000 AD according to pg. 25 here (see also here though this doesn’t preclude “Khitan” being a further back link to the Hittites. Another argument for the Hittites being connected to the Chinese focuses on appearances and clothing. On pgs. 43-44 of the paper written in 1889 here it suggests the Egyptian depictions of the Hittites are reminiscent of Chinese appearance, though I couldn’t find more recent arguments supporting that link. Moving on from Ham, there is a traditional Arabic belief that the Chinese are descended from Japheth. An Arabic tradition, stated on pg. 409 here claims Japheth was the father of the Chinese, though it also says Arabic traditions make Ham the father of the Europeans, which does not appear to be the case (see Episode 18 and Episode 19). Other Arabic writers try to connect China to Japheth and by “Amur” which the author speculates is “Gomer” on 406 here). Beyond this, the arguments in favor of Japheth are more logic and theology that archeology. First, for logic, if Japheth’s descendants are traced up into Central Asia around the Black Sea (see the last couple of episodes) and into India (see earlier in this episode) with speculation that Japheth’s son Magog went further up into Asia (see earlier in this episode) I would think it most likely that China would also be colonized by Japheth’s descendants. Second, regarding theology, in Genesis 9:27 Noah blesses Japheth and asks that God “enlarge” him. While this enlarging doesn’t specifically reference land, it is taken that way here with several commentators, including Benson, Barnes, Gill, and Poole suggesting Japheth’s descendants extended into Asia and possibly America as well. If, on the other hand, Ham’s descendants populated China, this blessing makes less sense as it is Ham who had a large growth of territory, unless Ham’s descendants only populated China and the rest of Asia and the Americas was still settled by Japheth’s children. In summary, while is is possible the first settlers in China might’ve been descendants of Ham, I think it is more plausible that Japheth was their forefather. For my earlier discussion of the Sinites settling in the modern Middle East, see Episode 17.
