We have heretofore noticed how, in 2 _Chron._ xvi. 8, the name Phut is
lost in that of Lubim, as accounted for by Josephus. But it should be
recollected that the prophet Hanani most distinctly refers to one of the
wars between the black tribes and the Jewish people, of which there had
been a long series from the exodus down.
We propose to adduce an argument from the language used in the
description of these wars.
In the time of King Asa, the invading army is described thus: “And there
came out against them Zerah, the Ethiopian, with a host of a thousand
thousand and three hundred chariots. And Asa cried unto the Lord his
God; so the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah, and
the Ethiopians fled: and Asa, and the people that were with him, pursued
them unto Gerar, and the Ethiopians were overthrown.” These people the
prophet calls Ethiopians and Lubims. This term proves that many of them
were from Lybia. Now is it to be presumed that so vast an army, one
million of men and three hundred chariots, was not composed of all the
tribes between the remotest location of any named and the place of
attack?
But this battle was commenced in the valley of Zephathah, in Philistia,
and pursued to Gerar, a city of the same country. “And they smote all
the cities round about Gerar. For the fear of the Lord came upon them,
and they spoiled all the cities, for there was exceeding much spoil in
them. They smote all the tents of cattle, and carried away sheep and
camels in abundance, and returned to Jerusalem.” See 2 _Chron._ xiv. 14,
15.
These facts could not have existed had not the Philistines composed a
part of the army.
Yet they are all Ethiopians. Is this no evidence that the tribes of Ham
generally were black?
But again, with the view to arrive at a greater certainty as to what
races did compose these armies, we propose to examine that which invaded
Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam.
“And it came to pass when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and
had strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all
Israel with him; and it came to pass in the fifth year of King
Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem, because
they had transgressed against the Lord, with twelve hundred chariots
and threescore thousand horsemen; and the people were without number
that came with him out of Egypt, the Lubims, the Sukkims, and the
Ethiopians; and he took the fenced cities, which pertain to Judah,
and came to Jerusalem.” 2 _Chron._ xii. 1–10. “And the people were
without number that came with him out of Egypt, _the Lubims_, _the
Sukkims_, _and the Ethiopians_.” The Hebrew construction of the
latter clause of this is thus: מִמִּצְרַיִם לוּבִ֥ים סֻכִּיִּ֖ים
וְכוּשִַׁים׃ _Mim-mits-raim, Lubim, Sukkiyyim ve Cushim_. We suggest
a slight error in the translation of these words. The prefix מ _mem_
preceding _Mitsraim_, we read a preposition, _out of_, _from_, &c.,
influencing and governing the two following words also; as, _from
Egypt_, _from Lybia_, _from Succoth_. It will be noticed that
_Cushim_ is preceded by the prefix ו _vav_. Grammarians have written
much upon this particle: we cannot enter into an argument on Hebrew
grammar, but, with all the learning that has been expended on this
particle, the Hebrew scholar must find the fact to be, that it is
sometimes used to designate a _result_; and we take occasion here to
say that, in our opinion, Professor Gibbs has given a more definite
and philosophical description of the Hebrew use of this particle,
than any lexicographer of modern research.
Suppose an ancient Hebrew physician wished to teach that certain
diseases were incurable, that they ended in death, might he not have
said, מִשַׁחֶפֶת קַדַּחַת אָנוּשׁ וְמוּה׃ _mish shahhepheth kaddahhath
anish vemuth_,—_from consumption, burning fever, the mortal sickness,
termination is death?_ Or, allow our Hebrew not to be so classical,
could he not have expressed the idea after this form? “The army was
without number, from Egypt, from Lybia, from the Nomads, all
Ethiopians.” And we here suggest the query, whether this is not the true
reading? We do not propose that this prefixed וְ _vav_ has the power of
an adjective or a verb, although it might require the one or the other
to give the idea in English. What we say is, that it is the sign of the
thing which is the result of the preceding nouns. If it had been used
here as a connective particle, then the two preceding nouns would also
have had it for a prefix. Such was the Hebrew idiom. It would then have
read, “And the people were,” &c., from Egypt, and from Lybia, and from
the Nomads, and from Ethiopia, as the translator seems to have supposed.
But, as it is, it determines them all to have been Ethiopians. This will
be in strict conformity with the description of the army at the time of
Asa. The invading army, at that time, was denominated Ethiopian,
although it is evident that many of the Hamitic tribes composed it.
The real cause of all these wars was the contest whether Palestine
should be held by the Hamitic race, or by the Shemitic, who were bearing
rule. Keeping this in mind, let us note how perfectly natural is this
description of those who composed the army under Shishak. The troops
first collected would be from among his own immediate people, the
Egyptians. The next, those who lived beyond him from the point of
attack, to wit, the Lubims, who lived to the west of Egypt. These being
collected together, they would commence their march, and the Nomads be
added to the list of the army after they joined it; but none other than
those governed by the same impulses would attach themselves to it.
Suffer us to illustrate this description of Shishak’s army by supposing
a somewhat analogous case, in much more modern times:—That during the
reign of Elizabeth, King Philip of Spain had made war on England, upon
the issue of whether the Protestant or Catholic faith should prevail in
that country. Philip would have first collected troops in Spain. He may
be supposed to collect large numbers in Portugal. These Spanish and
Portuguese troops may be supposed to march through France, and his army
vastly increased there; and, when upon the coast of England, some
Froissart would have said, that the people who came with Philip were
without number, Spaniards, Portuguese, French, all Catholics. The manner
of such description would be in exact similitude with this description
of Shishak’s army. Any one who is acquainted with the history of the
Crusades will readily see how a similar description would have in truth
fitted the army of the Cross. We think it proof conclusive that the
descendants of Ham were black. But we might add some proof from sketches
of profane history. In the 22d section of Euterpe, Herodotus says that
the natives on the Nile are universally black. In the 32d section,
giving an account of a party of Neesamonians, who in Africa were out
upon an excursion, he says—“While they were thus employed, seven men, of
dwarfish stature, came where they were, seized their persons, and
carried them away. They were mutually ignorant of each others’ language.
But the Neesamonians were conducted over marshy grounds to a city, in
which all the inhabitants were of diminutive appearance and of a black
colour.”
In the 57th section, he gives an account of an Egyptian priestess who
was brought among the Threspoti. He says that “the circumstance of her
being black explains to us her Egyptian origin.”
In the 104th section, he says—“The Cholchians certainly appear to be of
Egyptian origin, which indeed, before I had conversed with any one on
the subject, I had always believed. But as I was desirous of being
satisfied, I interrogated the people of both countries. The result was,
that the Cholchians seemed to have a better remembrance of the
Egyptians, than the Egyptians of the Cholchians. The Egyptians were of
the opinion that the Cholchians were descended of a part of the troops
of Sesostris: to this I myself was also inclined, because they are
black, and have their hair short and curling.”
Cambyses fought the black tribes of Egypt and Africa under Amasis, in
the western parts of Arabia. Herodotus says, (Thalia, section 12th,)
“The bones of those who fell in the engagement were soon afterwards
collected, and separated into two distinct heaps. It was observed of the
Persians, that their heads were so extremely soft as to yield to the
slight impression even of a pebble. Those of the Egyptians, on the
contrary, were so firm that the blow of a large stone could hardly break
them. * * * I saw the very same fact at Papremis, after examining the
bones of those who, under the conduct of Achæmenes, son of Darius, were
defeated by Inaius the African.”
Herodotus notices the distinction between the Arabs and the Negroes, but
calls them all Ethiopians. In the 70th section of Polymnia, he
says—“Those Ethiopians who came from the most eastern part of their
country, served with the Indians. These differed from the former in
nothing but their language and their hair. The Oriental Ethiopians have
their hair straight: those of Africa have their hair more crisp and
curling than other men.”
Herodotus lived and wrote about five hundred years before our era. We
have quoted him through a translation, but not without examining the
original.
We shall close our evidence on this point with a single quotation from
_Judg._ iii. 8 and 10. The children of Israel intermarried with the
Canaanites: the writer says, “Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot
against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of _Chusan rishathaim_,”
_the wicked Ethiopians_. Whereas it is as well known as any other fact
of biblical history, that these “_wicked Ethiopians_” were none other
than the Philistines and other aboriginal tribes of the land of Canaan.
Upon the conquest of Palestine by the Israelites, portions of the
Canaanites overspread the approachable parts of Africa, where numerous
hordes of their race were already in possession. For ages, there is said
to have stood near Tangier, a monument with inscriptions signifying that
it was built in commemoration of the people who fled from the face of
_Joshua_ the robber. From the presumption of this being a fact, and from
a collection of other facts connected with early commerce, Moore, in the
first volume of his History of Ireland, has strongly suggested that the
ancient Irish are partially indebted to the ancient Canaanites for their
origin; whereas we think we have sufficiently proved that they were
black. We hope the impulsive sons of the Emerald Isle will repel the
insult. But, if what Moore says be true, it only proves another portion
of our theory; for, as sin sinks to all moral and physical degradation
and slavery, so virtue and holiness elevate to freedom and all animal
and mental perfections; and since _Iern_ was for ages regarded as an
island of saints, Moore may have the benefit of the argument, if he
chooses, whereby to account for the high-toned feeling and personal
perfections of the modern Irish.
In conclusion, from the history of the family of man, we may all know
that the descendants of Japheth and Shem, when free from amalgamation
with the black tribes, are white people. Unless then the descendants of
Ham were black, how are we to account for the phenomena of the existence
of that colour among men? Philosophy has been in search, and history has
been on the watch; facts upon facts have been recorded touching every
matter; but have you ever heard of the uncontaminated descendants of
Japheth, living in the extreme, or in the central zone, exhibiting the
woolly crown of the sons of Ham?
------------------