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 from כּוּשִׁי֨ _Cushi_, 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 (כֻשִׁיִּ֙ים _Cushiim_) unto me?” _Amos_
ix. 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 word _negro_ to designate the same thing. “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.
And we deem these facts alone sufficient to 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 find מִצְרָים _Mitsraim_ in the Hebrew text. His
descendants took upon them the particular appellation _Misraimites_, as
in _Gen._ xvi. 1: “And she had a handmaid, (שִׁפְחָ֥ה _shiphehhah, a
female slave_,) an Egyptian, (מִצְרִ֖ית _Mitsrith_ a descendant of
Misraim,) whose name was Hagar.” She was a _Misraim_, 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. See _Gen._ xxi. 21. The descendants of Ishmael, therefore, were
three-fourths of Misraimitish blood, and are known and distinguished as
of his _race_, 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 called _Gilead_, 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 the Ishmaelites, 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 the _Ishmaelites_; 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.)”
See _Judg._ 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.” See _Deut._ xix. 15; also 2 _Cor._
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 the _Midianites_ and the _Ethiopians_. “I
saw the tents of _Cushan_ (כוּשָׁ֑ן _Ethiopians_) 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 of _Chus_; for the Ethiopians, over whom he
reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men of
Asia, called _Chusites_.” “The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved
in their name, for we who inhabit this country (Judea) call Egypt
_Mestra_, and the Egyptians _Mestreans_. 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, is _Ludim_. 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, the whole
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 of _Lybia_, 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 great
_Lixus_, 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 inhospitable
_Ethiopians_.”
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 the _Red 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 memorials of Phut are to
be found in the holy books. “Ethiopia and Egypt were thy strength, _Put_
and _Lubim_ were thy helpers.” _Nahum_ iii. 9.
_Put_ is the same Phut; in the text the _letter_ is _dagheshed_, which
takes away the aspirate sound. We here notice that _Put_ and _Lubim_ are
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 word _Lybia_ is translated from _Phut_. 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. _Lybians_ is also here translated from _Phut_.
“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, signifies _scattered_. Thus Num. x.
30. “Let thine enemies be scattered,” (פֻּצּוּ _phutsu_.) In Genesis x.
18, it is used with the same Heemanti, and with the same effect, which
we have noticed in the word _Naamah_, thus: “And afterwards were the
families of the Canaanites _spread abroad_,” נָפֹ֔צוּ _naphotsu_. 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,” נָפִֹצֶו֯ת _naphotseth_; 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, فَاَطس _phats_, and its variations, put down, _abiit_,
_peregrinatus fuit_ in terra, &c. In Coptic, Ⲫⲏⲧ fet _phet_ has the same
meaning; but in the hieroglyphical writings of the Copts, found in
Egypt, the idea _scattered_ is represented by an arrow. But an arrow is
called _phet_, because it is shot away, scattered. And the country or
people of the _Phutites_ is represented by a _bow_, _segment_ of a
_globe_, _nine arrows_, and an _undulating surface_. Those who have made
researches in such matters say, the phonetic power of this is
_nephaiat_. It will be perceived to be quite analogous to the _Heemanti_
prefixed 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 understand _Zephaniah_ iii. 10. “From beyond the rivers of
Ethiopia, my suppliants, _even the daughter of my dispersed_,
(בַּת־פּוּצַ֔י _bath 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.
------------------