כִּ֤י שָׁכַ֙חַתְּ֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעֵ֔ךְ וְצ֖וּר מָֽעֻזֵּ֭ךְ לֹ֣א זָכָ֑רְתְּ עַל־כֵּׄן תִּטְּעִי֨kî šākaḥatĕ ʾĕlōhê yišʿēk wĕṣûr māʿuzzēk lōʾ zākārt ʿal-kēn tiṭṭĕʿiy
נִטְעֵ֣י נַֽעֲמנִים וּזְמ֥רַׄת זָ֖ד תִּזרָעֶֽנּוּ׃niṭʿê naʿămnîm ûzĕmrat zād tizrāʿennû
It is translated thus: “Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou plant pleasant plants and shalt set it with strange slips.”
We beg to inquire whether there is not a material defect in the latter clause of this translation? The verb “to plant,” in Hebrew,governs two accusatives, to wit, the plantation and the thing planted. In English, we are compelled to render one of the names as governed by a preposition. Thus, he planted a field with corn, or he planted corn in a field. The wordזְמֹרַהzĕmōrazemorath, is often translated a song, as “The Lord Jehovah is my strength and song.” SeePs.cxviii. 14 andIsa.xii. 2. But the idea is more comprehensive than is our idea expressed by the term “song.” It includes the result of a course of conduct. Thus the result of a devout worship of God is that Jehovah becomes the “Zemorath” of the worshipper; and we doubt not our termresult, although imperfect, will give a better view of the prophet’s idea in this place than thesong. In this sense this word is used inGen.xliii. 11, and translated “fruits:” thus, “take of the best fruits of the land,” that is, the best results of our cultivation. The prophet informs his people that they intermix and amalgamate with the Naamathites because they have forgot God, and that the result is the two last words in the passage, to wit, the “zar” and “tizera-ennu” that is, a “stranger.” SeeExod.xxx. 33;Levit.xxii. 10, 12, 13, where “zar” is translated “stranger;” also,Jobxix. 15, 17; also,Prov.v. 10, 17, and 20; and many other places, surely enough to determine its meaning here. The original sense of the last word in the passage was tosow seed, hence toscatteranddestroy. The result of such amalgamation then is, their posterity will be a deteriorated race, and the pure Hebrew stock sown to the winds, scattered, wasted away and destroyed.
In these highly excited and poetic effusions of the prophet, we are to notice the chain of thought and mode of expression by which he reaches the object in view. This chapter commences with the information that Damascus shall cease to be a city; that Aroer shall be forsaken, and Ephraim be without a fortress to protect her; and finally that Jacob shall be made thin, like a few scattering grapes found by the gleaner, or a few berries of the olive left in the top of the bough, and the house of Jacob become desolate. In the passage under consideration the causes of this condition of Jacob are announced. If our view of the word “Naamah” be correct, in the masculine plural, as here used, it will be quite analogous to Ethiopians. But we have no one word of its meaning; perhaps the idea will be more correctly expressed by Naamathites. Evidently the idea intended to be conveyed by the prophet by the wordנַ֥עֲמָנִ֔יםnaʿămānîmNaamanim, is, a people whose cultivation would beabortive as to them and injurious to the cultivator; that is, a people with whom intermarriage will produce nothing but injury and destruction to the house of Jacob.
By the use of some such paraphrasis the idea of the prophet will be brought to mind: “Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength, therefore shalt thou (or therefore dost thou) plantNaamathites,” (that is, amalgamate with the descendants of Ham and Naamah,) “and the fruits of the land shall be a stranger” (that is, their adulterated posterity will be heathen) “scattering thee away;” that is, wasting away not only the purity of the Hebrew blood, but their worship also.
Repeat: “Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and hast not been mindful of the rock of thy strength.” Therefore dost thou cohabit with the heathen, and thy posterity, O Jacob, shall be an enemy, and thou scattered away and destroyed! Such is the announcement of the prophet.
One of the most bitter specimens of irony contained in the Scriptures is the answer of Job to the Naamathite: “No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.” The passage needs no comment.
The view we take of the word “Naamanim,” as used by Isaiah, we think warranted by the succeeding sentence, which we ask the scholar to notice.
“For a day thou shalt make thy plant to grow, for a morning thou shalt make thy seed to flourish, but the harvest shall be a heap” (a burden unbearable) “in the days of grief and desperate sorrow.” And such has ever been the lot of the white parent who has amalgamated with the negro; as to posterity, it is ruin.
The prophet borrowed his figure from agriculture. His intention was to present to the mind the abortiveness of such a course of sin, by presenting a bold and distinct view of the mental and moral character of the descendants of Naamah; and is on a par with—“Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the Lord.”Amosix. 7.
LESSON IX.
By referring to the instances where we allege are to be found variations of the namesCainandNaamah, it will be at once noticed that some of them are quite remarkable. Shall we be excused for a few remarks in explanation, by way of example, of other lingual changes? Queen Elizabeth lived but yesterday; and her history has not advanced through a very great variety of languages, yet we find, in commemoration of her, one place named Elizabeth, Elizabeth City, Elizabethtown, Elizabethville, Elizabethburg, and another, even Betsey’s Wash-tub, and because she was never married, one is called Virgin Queen, and another Virginia.
Now, we all know that at a very ancient period, the worship of the sun and of fire was introduced into the British Isles. Is there nothing left at this day in commemoration of that fact? The sun became an object of great and absorbing consideration. The ancient Celtic wordgrianmeant the sun; from the application of this word and its variations, we have a proof, not only of how words are made to change, but also of the fact that the people of that country were once addicted to the worship of the sun or fire. Hence Apollo, who was the sun personified, was called Grynæus. At once we find a singular change in the name of the Druidical idolCrom-Cruach, often calledCean Groith, the head of the sun. This was the image or idol god to whom the ancient inhabitants of Ireland offered infants and young children a sacrifice. It was in fact the same as the Moloch of the ancient Hamitic occupants of Palestine, and was so firmly established in the superstitions of the world, that whatever race had the ascendency in Ireland, it continued to be thus worshipped, giving the name of the “Plains of slaughter” to the place of its location, until St. Patrick had the success to destroy the image and its worship; and hence also the namesKnoc-greineandTuam-greine, hills where the sun was worshipped, and other places in Ireland, even now keep in memory that worship:Cairn-Grainey, the sun’s heap, Granniss’ bed, corrupted fromGrian-Beacht, the sun’s circle. A point of land near Wexford is calledGrenor, the sun’s fire, and the town ofGranaid, because the sun was worshipped there. And we may notice a stillgreater variation inCarig-Croith, the rock of the sun—and even our present wordgrange, from the almost obsolete idea, a place enclosed, separate and distinct, but open to the sun, now used as a synonyme offarm.
Let us take our wordfire, and we shall perceive remarkable changes through all the languages from the Chaldaic down.Gen.xi. 28, “Ur” is translated fromאוּרʾûrwhich means fire. Abraham was a native of Chaldea, and from a place where they worshipped fire, or the sun. It was used to mean the sun,Jobxxxviii. 12; also, in the plural,Isa.xxiv. 15: “Wherefore glorify ye the Lord in the fires?” It is hereארֻיםʾruymurim. Because fire emitted light, it became used to mean light. The wordsurimandthummimmeant lights or fires, and truth: among the fire-worshippers the same term meantfireandsun. The Copts called their kingssuns. Hence from this term they took the wordouro, to mean the idea of royalty; their articlepi, madepiouro, the sun or theking, which being carried back to the Hebrews, they made itPharaoh; but the sun was regarded as a god, and hence the Egyptian kings came to be called gods; but the Chaldaic and Hebrewאוּרʾûr, when applied to fire or the sun by the Copts, as an object of worship, was distinguished from the idea of royalty by the termraandre, with the particlepiraandpire, generally writtenphraandphre. Hence the Greekπυρ,pur, to mean fire, and hence pyrites, which means a fire-stone, a stone well burned, or a stone containing fire, &c.
And hence also the Hebrew wordראיrʾyrai, a mirror, vision, the god of vision, and by figure a conspicuous or illustrious person. But according to Butman, the Sanscrit rootRajais the original of the obsolete Greek word,Ῥα, Ῥαια, Ῥαων, and if so, possibly of the Chaldaic word under view. But however that may be, it is evident that the Greekradiosis at least derived through the channel indicated; and we now use the termrayto mean an emanation from great power. Our wordregentis also from the same source, through the Latinrex, and may be found, slightly modified, through all the European dialects. And it may be remarked that, cognate therewith, we have the Arabic wordraiheh, orraygeh, to mean fragrancy; the poetic minds of the Arabians uniformly applying this image to legitimate rule and government.
And if we take a view of the filiations of languages, even as they are now found, such changes cannot be deemed unusual, especially if we take into consideration the inevitable variation wordsare found to undergo in their progress through different countries and ages of time; and more especially, if we notice the precise manner in which lingual variations are found to operate.
Changes of language sometimes take place upon a single word apparently by caprice, among different tribes of people,—sometimes by the transposition of the consonant or vowel sound; by the insertion of a letter or letters for the sake of euphony; by the contraction or abbreviation of letters for the sake of despatch; by the reduplication of a letter or syllable on the account of some real or fancied importance or emphasis attached to it; and by the deletion or addition of a letter or syllable at the commencement or end of a word, for a real or supposed more felicitous enunciation of certain sounds in succession; and hence alterations, slight at first, are liable to become quite remarkable.
Thusμορφηin Greek, becomesformæin Latin;regnumbecomesreign;cœlum, ciel;ultra jectum, Utrecht; andעבדʿbdebed, eved, as variously pronounced, meaning aslave, becomesobediens,obedienter,obedio,obedientia, in Latin, andobey,obedient, &c., in English. The Celticrosbecomeshorse, and the Englishgrassbecomesgarse. Consonants of the same order are interchanged; p becomesb, and bv, dt, gkand sometimesn,—φbecomesphorf, d or t becomesth, and g or cgh. It is therefore impossible that such changes should not have taken place, and therefore they give proof of the genuineness of the history they may develop.
WE have heretofore remarked that such names as are derived fromCainorNaamahare never found in the holy books, except among and applied to the descendants of Ham. But there are some few instances of the application of these terms in the family of the Benjamites. It is therefore our design now to prove, so far as may be, that such instances, in the family of Benjamin, are wholly confined to those cases where the Benjamite was a mixed-blooded person, and a descendant of Ham, as well as of the youngest son of Jacob. The holy books do give evidence that individuals of the race of Shem did sometimes commingle with the descendants of Ham.
From the proximity of the Israelite tribes to those of Ham; from their co-habitation of Palestine itself, it was natural to expect among the low and vulgar, as well as among those whose morals hung loosely about them, that such intermixture should take place. “Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters. And Sheshan had a servant, (עֶבֶדevedebed, aslave,) an Egyptian, (מִצְרִ֖יmiṣrîMitsri, aMisraimite, a descendant of the second son of Ham,) whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant, (עֶבֶדʿebedebed, slave) to wife.” 1Chron.ii. 34, 35. Proving the wisdom and truth of the saying of Solomon, “He that delicately bringeth up his servant (עֶבֶדʿebedebed, slave) from a child, shall have him become his son at length.”Prov.xxix. 21.
“Rehoboam was forty-one years old when he began to reign; and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord did choose out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there: and his mother’s name was Naamah, an Ammonitess. And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother’s name wasNaamah, anAmmonitess.” 1Kingsxiv. 21, 31.
“For Rehoboam was one-and-forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the Lord had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there, and his mother’s name wasNaamah, anAmmonitess.” 2Chron.xii. 13.
“But King Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh; women of the Moabites,Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you.” 1Kingsxi. 1, 2.
By thus personally amalgamating with the various nations over whom he ruled, Solomon, no doubt, expected more firmly to establish his throne. This led to the selection of the son of this woman for his successor.
A vast majority of the tribes over whom his reign extended were the descendants of Ham.
But this very act, which he thought to be political wisdom, although contrary to the laws of God, brought ruin to the permanency of his dynasty. The great majority of his Jewish subjects, hunting up, as was natural, plausible excuses, rejected with scorn the contamination of the royal house.
And we see such manifestation of Divine providence even at thepresent day: even among ourselves, men whose talents and patriotism might authorize them to look to any station, are forced back by public sentiment, degraded by a notorious amalgamation with the descendants of Ham.
We shall hereafter see some proof that this “Naamah,” the mother of Rehoboam, was the individual whose praises are celebrated in the book of Canticles: at any rate, she was an Ammonitess, a descendant of Ham, and the prophet Hanani includes the Ammonites among those whom he calls Ethiopians. See 2Chron.xvi. 8.
If then it be true that Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, was the great female progenitor of the race of Ham, we should expect to find some testimony of her remembrance even among her mingled offspring. And since the unmixed race of Ham have generally, at all times of the world, been too degraded to even leave behind them any written memorials, it is to the mixed race, and their connection with the races of Shem and Japheth, that we are principally to look for any particular fact concerning them; and it is reasonable to conclude, as we find this kind of memorial among the mixed race, that the same kind of memorial existed much more frequently among the unmixed races of Ham.
“And the sons of Benjamin were Belah, and Becher, and Ashbel, Gera, andNaaman, Ehi, and Rosh, Muppim, and Huppim, and Ard.”Gen.xlvi. 21.
“The sons of Benjamin after their families of Bela, the family of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the family of the Ashbelites; of Ahiram, the family of the Ahiramites; of Shupham, the family of the Shuphamites; of Hupham, the family of the Huphamites. And the sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman; of Ard, the family of Ardites, and of Naaman, the family of Naamanites.”Num.xxvi. 38–40.
“Now Benjamin begat Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second, and Ahirah the third, Nohah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth. And the sons of Bela were Addar, and Gera, and Abihud, and Abishua, andNaaman, and Ahoah, and Gera, and Shephuphan, and Huram. And these are the sons of Ehud: these are the heads of the fathers of the inhabitants of Geba, and they removed them to Manahath. AndNaaman, and Ahiah, and Gera, he removed them, and begat Uzra and Abihud. AndShaharaimbegat children in the country of Moab, after he had sent them away.” 1Chron.viii. 1–8.
The hurried reader might well apprehend these three different accounts of the same matter to be somewhat contradictory. We think otherwise. We had, in fact, prepared several sheets, elucidating these genealogies of Benjamin, but upon a review we found much irrelevant to the subject of our present inquiry: we deem only a few remarks necessary.
Our object is to show that these genealogies prove that some portion of the family named were coloured people, descended from Ham, and thatNaamanis distinguished most clearly to be of that class.
It will be readily perceived thatMuppimמִפֻּיִ֥םmippuyim, in Genesis, is formed fromמֹףmophMoph, and thus used inHos.ix. 6: “Memphis(מַֹףmōapMoph) shall bury them.” Our word is a Hebraism of the Coptic wordנֹףnōpNoph, theNodof Genesis, theNoof the prophets Ezekiel and Nahum, and finally confounded withMemphis.
It is here used after the form of a Hebrew masculine plural, and as a caput, to aid in the classification of the descendants of Benjamin; and clearly designates, whatever may have been their blood, that one class wereMemphites.
So the wordhuppimהֻפִּיםhuppîmis formed from the quite ancient wordהַףhaphaph, which means innocence, purity; whence also the wordהָפָהhāpâhaphah, covered, shielded, protected; and hence,הֻפָּהhuppâhupah,bride-chamber,the marriage-bed, andmarriageitself. In this sense the word is used inJoelii. 16, and in several other places, where the translator has so paraphrased the idea as to make it imperceptible to the English reader.
Nor is it an unworthy consideration in the etymology of this word, that from the ideapurity, the Arabians borrowed from it their wordجارjarhhar, to meanwhite, which was quickly introduced into Hebrew in the wordהוּרhûrhur, andהוֹרhôrhor, to meanwhitealso. Hence, MountהָורhāwrHor, “the white mountain;” and from which branch of the derivation the corresponding words in Numbers and Chronicles have taken their origin. Here, then, we have another word used in the same manner, to designate another class of the descendants of Benjamin, as of thepure stock,legitimateandwhite.
The wordוָאָֽרְּדְּwāʾǒrdva ardoraredin Genesis, andאַ֣רְדְּʾardardoraredin Numbers, is changed bydageshand transposition intoאַדָּרʾaddāraddarin Chronicles. It is unnecessary to go into an explanation of Hebrew peculiarities. It is probable that we never have had the true pronunciation of any of these words. But however that may be, the analogy of language seems to show that this word is a cognate of the Arabicغَرَضgharaḍgharadh, and the Syrianܕܓܳܪܳܕdharadhdharadh, and from whenceעֲרָדʿărādharadorarad; yet there is nothing more common than foralephandghainto interchange in one and the same word. They are ever regarded as cognates. But again, the word is not of Hebrew origin, and with the latter spelling, we find it inNum.xxi. 1, xxxiii. 40,Josh.xii. 14, andJudgesi. 16, as the name of a Canaanitish city. The Arabic is more guttural than Hebrew, and it has twoghains, one more guttural than the other, distinguished byרְבִיעַrĕbîaʿrĕviă, aresting upon; thus, in translating Arabic into Hebrew, the one will take the Hebrewghain, but the Arabicghainwith which this word is spelled is at once converted into the Hebrewaleph; so that while we thus find the very word, we find it with the evidence of a Canaanitish admixture.
Its application in Hebrew seems to be mostly confined to thewild ass, (seeDan.v. 21;) but the Syriac gives iteffrænatus,effrænis fuit, and the Arabic,durus fuit,fugit. Such, then, being its signification in these languages, we may well perceive its adaptedness to thewild ass. We all know that the wild Arabs are the descendants of Ishmael; now a true synonyme in Hebrew of this word was applied to him: “He shall be awild man;” he was illegitimate, mixed-blooded. The term can apply to no other than such a race as that of Ishmael,—wild,illegitimate, and ofimpure blood.
In Numbers we findShupham, and in ChroniclesShephuphan, substituted for theMuppimin Genesis; both being the same word in different forms. The root isשֶׁפִיshephishephi, a high situation; henceשָפַטshaphatshaphat, a judge, and its derivatives are applied to the person or thing adjudged. Henceשִׁפְחָהšipḥâshiphehhahh, afemale slave; (SeeGen.xvi. 16; i. 2, 3; also xx. 14; also xxxii. 22;) and hence, also the Syrianܫܳܦܦܰshafefa, aserpent, because the serpent had been adjudged, condemned. Whence the Hebrewshephiphim, poetically used to mean a serpent, as, “Dan shall judge his people; Dan shall be a serpent by the way.”Gen.xlix. 16. In this passage in Hebrew, there is a beautifulparonomasiain the wordDan, which also means a judge,judgeand theserpent. But the serpent is calledשְׁפִיפ֖ןֹshephiphnoshephiphon, only as it had been adjudged; and it is to be noticed, as here used, it has the same points and accents as in Chronicles, and is substantially the same word,—not, as here, borrowed from the Syriac, to mean a serpent, but used to mean the adjudged, condemned to some condition or degradation. “And they removed them toManahath.”Manahathwas a district of country near the Dead Sea, near the ancient city Zoar; and it is a little remarkable that Zoar was by the Canaanites calledBela, the very name of the son of Benjamin. The whole country was called by the general term Moab. The fact that it was a custom to send persons of a certain description there, seems to be alluded to by the prophet: “Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, O Moab!”Isa.xvi. 4.
But, who were sent there? “Naaman,Ahia, andGera, he removed them. * * * AndShaharaimbegat children in the land of Moab after he had sent them away.” This explains the whole matter.Shaharaimis a plural formation ofShihor, and meansblack. “And these blacks begat children in the land of Moab after he had sent them away,”—that is,Naaman,Ahia, andGera; further establishing the fact that the wordNaamahis kept in remembrance only by the descendants of Ham. One class of the race of Benjamin is described in Genesis asMemphites; in fact, that whole genealogy substantially divides them into those who were white, and of pure descent, and into those who were not white, and of impure descent. Numbers and Chronicles confirm and warrant the same distinction.
The seventh Psalm commences thus:—“Shiggaion of David, which he sang unto the Lord, concerning the words of Cush, the Benjamite.” It would have been more readily understood, and more decidedly a translation thus:A song of lamentation of David, which he sang unto the Lord, concerning the words of an Ethiopian, a Benjamite.
The word “Cush,” as often elsewhere, is here used to designate a descendant of Ham by his colour. But it clearly proves an amalgamation, to some extent, of the race of Ham, in the family of Benjamin.
Indeed, the race of Benjamin had become deeply intermixed with the descendants of Ham; and this fact well accounts whythey did, upon an occasion, behave like as the Sodomites to Lot; and why the other tribes of Israel so readily joined in league to utterly destroy and annihilate this tribe, and did put to death fifty thousand warriors in one day, and every man, woman, and child of the whole tribe, except a few hundred men, who hid in the rock Rimmon. SeeJudgesxix. xx.
It remains now to examine what proof there exists that the descendants of Ham were black. We wish to impress upon the mind the fact, that among all aboriginal nations, and in all primitive languages, proper names are always significant terms. Such is the fact among the Indian tongues of America at this day. The holy books give ample proof that such was eminently the case among the ancient Hebrews. Every name that Adam bestowed was the consequence of some cause that operated on his mind. And if we examine minutely into the influences operating even among ourselves, in such cases, we shall be unable to deny that such is the universal law. There is a cause for every thing.
“And the sons of Ham (were) Cush and Misraim, and Phut and Canaan.”Gen.x. 6.
It will not be denied that the word Ethiopian, as used in Scripture, means a black man. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots.”Jer.xiii. 23. The word “Ethiopian,” in this passage from Jeremiah, is translated fromכּוּשִׁי֨kûšiyCushi, the very name of the oldest son of Ham. And we shall find in every instance where in the Old Testament the word Ethiopia or Ethiopian is used, that it is translated from the same word, varied in termination according to the position in which it is used, and as applied to country or people. “Are ye not as the children of the Ethiopians (כֻשִׁיִּ֙יםkušiyyîmCushiim) unto me?”Amosix. 7. It became and was used as a general term, by which all descendants of Ham were designated by their colour, in the same manner as we now use the Latin wordnegroto designate the same thing. “And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married anEthiopianwoman.”Num.xii. 1. And we deem these facts alone sufficientto establish the truth of the proposition that that branch of Ham’s family were black.
In the examination of what evidence may now be found that the family of Misraim were black, we beg to notice a fact which we suppose no scholar will dispute—that he settled in Egypt, and, in fact, gave his name to that country. As Cush gave his name to all Ethiopia and its inhabitants, as Canaan gave his name to the land of Canaan, and Canaanites to its inhabitants, so Misraim gave his name to Egypt and its inhabitants. Whenever we find the word Egypt or Egyptian in our English version, we never fail to findמִצְרָיםmiṣrāymMitsraimin the Hebrew text. His descendants took upon them the particular appellationMisraimites, as inGen.xvi. 1: “And she had a handmaid, (שִׁפְחָ֥הšipḥâshiphehhah, a female slave,) an Egyptian, (מִצְרִ֖יתmiṣrîtMitsritha descendant of Misraim,) whose name was Hagar.” She was aMisraim, a descendant from the second son of Ham. The word is translated “Egyptian.” A family feud growing up upon the occasion of her having a son by her master Abraham, she and her son were sent away to the wilderness of Paran; where, when the son was grown, she took him a wife of her own race, from the land of Egypt. SeeGen.xxi. 21. The descendants of Ishmael, therefore, were three-fourths of Misraimitish blood, and are known and distinguished as of hisrace, by the particular name of Ishmaelites.
Midian was a district of country lying near to and including Mount Sinai. The people, in reference to the country, were called Midianites, but without any reference to their descent or race. From the position of the district of country called Midian, it would be reasonable to suppose the inhabitants in after times to be descended from Ishmael; and in fact, whenever we find any allusion made to the whole country of the Ishmaelites, we shall find it to include Midian. But it may be proper to remark, that from a notable mountain calledGilead, situated in this region, the whole country was sometimes called by that name, and one of the cities in it also called Gilead.
We are all acquainted with that most beautiful and pathetic history of Joseph; but let us read a passage—and we pray you to notice with distinctness the language:
“And they lifted up their eyes and looked, and behold a company of Ishmaelites came from Gilead, with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt. * * * And Judah said, * * * Come, let us sell him to theIshmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him. * * * And his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites, merchantmen, and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to theIshmaelites; and the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar. And Joseph was brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites which had brought him down thither.”Gen.xxxvii. 25–36, and xxxix. 1. Is it not positive and clear that the Ishmaelites and the Midianites were one and the same people?
But again, there was, during the days of the judges, a destructive war between the Israelites and the Midianites. “And the Midianites and the Amalekites, and all the children of the east, lay along in the valley, like grasshoppers for multitude. * * * And when Gideon was come, behold, there was a man that told a dream. * * * And when Zeba and Zalmunna fled, he pursued after them, and took the two kings of Midian, Zeba and Zalmunna, and discomfited all the host.
“And Gideon the son of Joash returned from the battle before the sun was up. * * * Then the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over us, both thou and thy son, and thy son’s son also, for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian. And Gideon said unto them, I would desire a request of you, that you would give me every man the ear-rings of his prey. (For they had golden ear-rings, because they were Ishmaelites.)” SeeJudg.vii. 12–14, also viii. 12–24.
Here then is another instance where the Midianites and the Ishmaelites are announced to be the same people. “At the mouth of two witnesses shall the matter be established.” SeeDeut.xix. 15; also 2Cor.xiii. 1. “Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian.”Exod.iii. 1.
“When Jethro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel his people, and that the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt, then Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took Zipporah, Moses’ wife, (after he had sent her back,) and her two sons.”Exod.xviii. 1, 2, 3.
“And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses, because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married, for he had married an Ethiopian woman.”Num.xii. 1.
Even in the poetic strain of the prophet, there is a vestige that goes to prove the sameness between theMidianitesand theEthiopians.“I saw the tents ofCushan(כוּשָׁ֑ןkûšānEthiopians) in affliction, and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.”Hab.iii. 7.
Are these facts no proof that the descendants of Misraim were black?
Let us then proceed to the same inquiry concerning the descendants of Phut.
In the Antiquities of Josephus, book i. 6, we find the following: “The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus and the mountains of Lybanus; seizing upon all that was upon the seacoasts and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. Some, indeed, of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them being changed, and another sound given, hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are, which kept their denominations entire. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name ofChus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men of Asia, calledChusites.” “The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name, for we who inhabit this country (Judea) call EgyptMestra, and the EgyptiansMestreans. Phut also was the founder of Lybia, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself. There is also a river in the country of the Moors which bears that name, whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiographers mention that river, and the adjoining country, by the appellation of Phut. But the name it has now has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mestraim, who was called Lybios.” His name, in the English version of Genesis, isLudim. From him the Lybian desert has taken its name, and the country now called Lybia. Thus we discover from Josephus that the memorials of the nephew had obliterated those of Phut, his uncle. As Phut was the founder of Lybia, which was at one time called by his name, it may be well to inquire as to the extent of that region, that we may know where the descendants of Phut have resided from the time of their progenitor till now.
In order to form a tolerably correct idea of what was the country once called Phut, we have to examine how far the son of Misraim extended his name in superseding him. We quote from the Melpomene of Herodotus, where he compares the extent of Lybia, Asia, and Europe. Concerning Lybia, he says—
“Except in that particular part which is contiguous to Asia, thewhole of Lybia is surrounded by the sea. The first person who has proved this was, as far as we are able to judge, Necho, king of Egypt: when he had desisted from his attempt to join, by a canal, the Nile with the Arabian Gulf, he despatched some vessels, under the conduct of Phœnicians, with directions to pass the columns of Hercules, and, after penetrating the Northern Ocean, to return to Egypt.
“These Phœnicians, taking their course from the Red Sea, entered into the Southern Ocean. On the approach of autumn they landed in Lybia, and planted some corn in the place where they happened to find themselves. When this was ripe, and they had cut it down, they again departed.
“Having thus consumed two years, they in the third doubled the columns of Hercules and returned to Egypt. Their relation may obtain attention from others, but to me it seems incredible; for they affirm that, having sailed round Lybia, they had the sun on their right hand. Thus was Lybia for the first time known.”
Hanno, a Carthaginian, was sent, about 600 years before our era, with 30,000 of his countrymen, to found colonies on what is now the western coast of Africa. His account commences—“The voyage of Hanno, commander of the Carthaginians, round the parts ofLybia, which lie beyond the pillars of Hercules.”
In the body of the work he says—“When we had passed the pillars on our voyage, and sailed beyond them two days, we founded the first city, which we named Thurmiaterium. Below it lay an extensive plain. Proceeding thence towards the west, we came to Solous, a promontory of Lybia.”
Having proceeded on with his voyage, he says—“We came to the greatLixus, which flows from Lybia; on its banks the Lixitæ, a shepherd tribe, were feeding their flocks, among whom we continued several days, on friendly terms. Beyond the Lixitæ dwell the inhospitableEthiopians.”
Herodotus, immediately preceding our quotation of him, says—“Lybia commences where Egypt ends; about Egypt the country is narrow; one hundred thousand orgiæ, or one thousand stadia, comprehend the space between this and theRed Sea. Here the country expands and takes the name of Lybia.”
Africa, to an indefinite extent, was the country of Phut.
The result of the inquiry thus far is, that the tribes of Phut amalgamated with the descendants of Misraim, until all family memorials of them became extinct. But let us examine what memorialsof Phut are to be found in the holy books. “Ethiopia and Egypt were thy strength,PutandLubimwere thy helpers.”Nahumiii. 9.
Putis the same Phut; in the text theletterisdagheshed, which takes away the aspirate sound. We here notice thatPutandLubimare associated together.
“They of Persia, and of Lud, and of Phut, were in thine army, thy men of war.”Ezek.xxvii. 10.
“Persia, Ethiopia, and Lybia with them: all of them with shield and helmet.”Ezek.xxxviii. 5.
In this instance the wordLybiais translated fromPhut. We take this as proof that the country of the son of Misraim and Phut was the same, and the two families amalgamated.
“Come up, ye horses, and rage, ye chariots: and let the mighty men come forth, the Ethiopians and the Lybians that handle the shield.”Jer.xlvi. 9.Lybiansis also here translated fromPhut.
“Were not the Ethiopians and the Lubims a huge host?”2 Chron.xvi. 8. There Phut is lost in that of Lubim, as accounted for by Josephus. The families were wholly amalgamated, the nephew carrying off the trophy of remembrance.
The proof that the family of Phut were black is rather inferential than positive; but can the mind fail to determine that it is certain?
But again, Phut, as an appellative, signifiesscattered. Thus Num. x. 30. “Let thine enemies be scattered,” (פֻּצּוּpuṣṣûphutsu.) In Genesis x. 18, it is used with the same Heemanti, and with the same effect, which we have noticed in the wordNaamah, thus: “And afterwards were the families of the Canaanitesspread abroad,”נָפֹ֔צוּnāpōṣûnaphotsu. The idea is, by the influence of the circumstances attending them,they were scattered. The condition is involuntary, the action implied is reflective. A similar use of the word occurs in 2 Samuel xviii. 8: “The battle was scattered,”נָפִֹצֶו֯תnāpōiṣewtnaphotseth; that is, it was scattered only as it was forced to be by the circumstances attending it. The distinctive appellation thus of the family of Phut, means a scattered people. The phonetic synonyme of Phut means scattered, in all the Shemitic tongues.
Thus in Arabic,فَاَطسfaṭsphats, and its variations, put down,abiit,peregrinatus fuitin terra, &c. In Coptic,Ⲫⲏⲧ fetphethas the same meaning; but in the hieroglyphical writings of the Copts,found in Egypt, the ideascatteredis represented by an arrow. But an arrow is calledphet, because it is shot away, scattered. And the country or people of thePhutitesis represented by abow,segmentof aglobe,nine arrows, and anundulating surface. Those who have made researches in such matters say, the phonetic power of this isnephaiat. It will be perceived to be quite analogous to theHeemantiprefixed to the root.The people who have been compelled to be exceedingly scattered.
When Jonathan wished in an emphatic manner to signify to his friend David that he should depart, go off from his family, &c., he shot an arrow beyond him. Was not the arrow emblematical of what was supposed his only safe condition?
These explanations as to the significance of the word Phut will enable us better to understandZephaniahiii. 10. “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, my suppliants,even the daughter of my dispersed, (בַּת־פּוּצַ֔יbat-pûṣaybath Putsa, the descendants of Phut,) shall bring mine offering.” Unknown and scattered as they are over the trackless wastes of Africa, yet even to them shall come the knowledge of the true God. They shall, at one day, come to the knowledge of the truth.
The hieroglyphical record relating to the Phutites is considered, by those versed in such matters, to point to a period of at least 2000 years anterior to our era. The inference, to our mind, is clear, that the family of Phut at an exceedingly ancient period was wholly absorbed and lost sight of among the other families of Ham, especially in that of Ludim, the oldest son of Mitsraim: that they were of the same colour and other family distinctions, unless it may be they differed in a deeper degradation: that for numberless ages the mass of the descent are alone to be found in the most barbarous portions of Africa.