From the root המּה has also been derived the Arabic word حَمَّانٌ
_haman_, and the Syriac ܚܳܡܳܢ' _haman_, and adopted by the Hebrews in
the word חַמָן _haman_, which Castell translates “_images_,” dedicated
to the worship of the sun, the worship of fire, heat, &c.
The Hebrew use of this word will be found in a plural form in _Lev._
xxvi. 30, thus: “And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your
_images_,” _hammanekem_. 2 _Chron._ xiv. 3 (the fourth of the Hebrew
text:) “And brake down the _images_,” חַמָנִ֑ים _hammanim_; also xxxiv.
4, 7: “And the _images_, (חַמָּנִים _hammanim_) that were on high above
them, he cut down,” “and had beaten the graven images (חַמָנִ֖ים
_hammanim_) into powder.” _Isa._ xvii. 8: “Either the groves or the
_images_,” חַמָנִֽים _hammanim_; also xxvii. 9: “The groves and images
(חַמָנִֽים hammanim) shall not stand up.” _Ezek._ vi. 4, 6: “Your altars
shall be desolate, and your _images_ (חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔ם _hammanekem_) shall
be broken,” “and your _images_ (חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔ם _hammanekem_) may be cut
down.” We have no possible word to express literally this term, but the
_hammanekens_, or little HAMS, or fire-houses, the objects of religious
adoration, were conical towers, from fifty to one hundred feet high, and
fifteen to twenty feet in diameter at the base, and gradually decreasing
upward, with a small door or opening fifteen or twenty feet above the
base, and four smaller ones near the apex, looking towards the cardinal
points.
The moderns have no certain knowledge of their particular use, yet all
believe that in them was attempted to be kept the perpetual or holy
fire, and perhaps into them was thrust the infant sacrificed to the god.
May we not suppose that Daniel and his brethren would have informed us,
had it been necessary for us to know more? Spencer, Heb. Laws, lib. ii.
cap. 25, § 3, says of these edifices: “_They were of a conical form and
of a black colour_.” It seems to us this identifies these edifices with
the round towers of Persia and elsewhere, remains of many of which were
anciently found in Ireland. The curious about this matter are referred
to Gesenius’s Thesaurus, p. 489; also Lee’s Lex. p. 297, where he quotes
Henrici Arentii Hamaker Miscellanea Phœnicia, pp. 49, 54; also Diatribe
Philologico-Critica aliquot monumentorum Punicorum; Selden, de Diis
Syris, ii. cap. 8, and the authors severally cited by them. Upon a full
consideration of the subject, Dr. Lee says—“Upon the whole, I am
disposed to believe that the term הָם (_haman_) is rather derived from
הָם _Ham_, the father of Canaan, of Mitsraim, &c., _Gen._ x. 6–20; and
hence by the latter worshipped as presiding angel of the sun, under the
title of Ἄμουν, _Greek_ Ἄμμων (_Ammon_), which is probably our very
word.” If so, then his very name became significant of the worship of
fire, and even expressive of the fire-temples themselves.
By some fanciful relation, not relevant to our subject, between the fire
or sun worshippers and astronomy, when the sun was in aries (the ram),
the god Ham, _Ammon_, _Hammon_, or _Jupiter Hammon_, was represented
with a ram’s head for his crest; with this crest became associated the
idea of the god, and hence chonchologists, even to this day, call
certain shells, that are fancied to resemble the ram’s horn,
_Ammonites_, giving further evidence, even now, of how deeply seated was
the association between the earlier descendants of Ham and the fire
worship of their day.
The long and fanciful story of _Io_, changed by Jupiter into a white
cow; of her flight from the fifty sons of Egyptus; of her becoming the
progenitor of the _Ionians_; the Egyptians claiming her under the name
of _Isis_; of her marriage with _Osiris_, who became at length _Apis_
and _Serapis_, worshipped in the image of a black bull with a white spot
in his forehead, and many such tales, are all legitimately descended
from his family peculiarities, their relative condition in the world,
and the fact that Ham became the imaginary _deity_ of his descendants.
Much evidence may be had proving that Ham became inseparably associated
with, and in fact the very father of, idolatry, and of all those
enormities growing out of it; enormities with which idolatry has ever
been attended, and which time and the history of man for ever give proof
to be a total preventive of all physical and moral elevation and
improvement; and which, like other breaches against the laws of God,
have, at all times, among all men, for ever been accompanied by both
physical and moral degradation. But the descendants of Ham gave his name
to their country. Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_ was the Coptic name for Egypt, which the
Septuagint translates into Χαμ _Cham_. Plutarch styles Egypt Χημία
_Chemia_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_, and, as if he wished to give
some account of its origin, adds, θερμή γὰρ ἐστὶν καὶ ὕγρα, “for it is
_hot and humid_;” showing that the Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_ of the Copts signified
the same as the Ham of the Hebrews. But the Coptic word Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_,
Χημι and Χημε of Plutarch, also signified the adjective _black_. See
Gibbs’s Hebrew Lexicon, under the word חָם _Ham_; and with this
signification the word _Ham_ is used in _Ps._ lxxviii. 51: “The chief of
their strength in the tabernacles of _Ham_:” Septuagint, Χαμ, _Cham_,
from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _chemi_, black. cv. 23: “And Jacob sojourned in the
land of _Ham_,” חָם _Ham_: Septuagint, Χαμ, _Cham_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ
_chemi_, black. 27: “And wonders in the land of Ham:” Septuagint, Χαμ
_Cham_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _chemi_, black. cvi. 22: “Wondrous works in
the land of _Ham_:” Septuagint, Χαμ _Cham_, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ
_chemi_, black. The idea is, the land of the black people.
In this sense also the word is used in _Gen._ xiv. 5: “And smote the
Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in _Ham_.” The Septuagint
translates this passage into Καὶ ἔθνη ἰσχυρά ἅμα αὐτοῖς, as though the
בְּהָ֑ם _be Ham_ was a pronoun, and which seems to have been the view of
several ancient translators. But such certainly was not the view of the
translators of the received version; nor of Martindale, and others from
whom he compiled. He says of this passage—“2. _Ham_, crafty, or heat;
the country of the Zuzims, the situation of which is not known:” p. 326.
We certainly agree with the Septuagint that זוּזִים _Zuzim_ was a
significant term, and perhaps well enough explained by ἔθνη ἰσχυρὰ, for
which a suitable translation would seem to be _wicked_, _perverse_,
_strong_, _numerous_, or _stubborn heathen_. They were probably the
זַמְזֻמֲים Zamzummims of _Deut._ ii. 20.
The word בְּהָ֑ם _be Ham_, unless a pronoun as above, against which much
can be said, is evidently used as in the _Psalms_ quoted. In all these
cases _Ham_ is used somewhat as a synonyme of כּוּשׁ _Cush_; and when
applied to a country generally, meant whatever country was occupied by
the descendants of _Ham_. The sense of the sentence, _and Zuzims in
Ham_, will then be, _and the stubborn heathen in Ethiopia_, or, _the
perverse tribes of Cush_, or _the wicked nations of Ham_; all meaning
the black tribes, descendants of Ham, or some one of them, when
particularity is intended, as probably in this case; and let it be
noticed, that Martindale, p. 241, gives “blackness” as his first
definition of _Cush_. The descendants of Ham applying his name to
themselves and country, they being black, it necessarily became
significant of that colour. We have Germans, Swedes, English; but if we
say “Negroes,” or if we say Africans, we mean black men, because those
words, as now used, mean men of colour; and in a sense analogous, the
word _Ham_ seems to have been used in the passages quoted.
This view of the word _Ham_ we think elucidates the history of Esther
and that of Haman הָמָ֥ן the son of Hamadatha—_Agagite_, _ha Agagi_. The
word is a patronymic of אַגָג _Agag_,—hence he was an Amalekite: “Agag,
the king of Amalek”—“Agag, the king of the Amalekites.” 1 _Sam._ xv. 20,
32. “Now there was one Haman, the son of Amadatha, by birth an
Amalekite.” _Josephus_, book ii. cap. vi. 5. This shows the cause of the
extraordinary hatred that existed between her people and his. His very
name shows that he was a descendant of _Ham_, and we think also proves
that the Amalekites were black; and which fact is confirmed by 1 _Sam._
xv. 6: “And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart; get ye down from
among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them,”—evincing the fact
that by mere inspection he could not distinguish the one from the other.
We have before shown that the Kenites were black. The argument follows,
that the Amalekites were also.
The word _Ham_ is also used in 1 _Chron._iv. 40, in the same manner as
it is in _Psalms_ and _Genesis_, thus: “For they of _Ham_ חָ֔ם had dwelt
there of old.” This is said of Gedar, “_even unto the east_ side of the
valley.” Now Gedar was in the mountains of Judea, (see _Josh._ xv.
48–60,) or in the valley, (see _Josh._ xv. 36;) and as that account of
the country of Judea closes (see _idem_, 63) by informing us whom the
inhabitants of Judah could not drive out, and as the inhabitants of
Gedar are not included in such list, it is to be presumed that the
inhabitants of Gedar were so driven out at the time of Joshua; and
leaves us nothing else to conclude than that, whoever they were, they
who are spoken of in this passage, as having dwelt there of old, were
the people driven out by him. But _Josh._ xii. 7, 8 informs us who the
people were on the west side of Jordan, both in the mountains and
valleys, and names them as Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites,
and Hivites, and Jebusites; and from the 9th to the 24th gives us an
account of their kings, among whom is named the king of Gedar, who was
smitten and driven out. It is immaterial which of the tribes they were.
They were inhabitants of Palestine, (see 2 _Chron._ xxviii. 18 and 1
_Chron._ xxvii. 28,) of the land of Canaan, not of south, east, nor of
northern Arabia, nor of Egypt or any part of Africa; yet they are
emphatically spoken of as of _Ham_, clearly having reference to their
descent and colour. Here we have an additional key whereby to unlock the
meaning of this word as used in _Psalms_ and _Genesis_. There can be no
doubt these primitive inhabitants of Gedar were the descendants of
Canaan. Yet they are described by the same term which in other places is
used to describe the descendants of Cush and Mitsraim; a term which most
unquestionably determines them to have been black.
But the Coptic word _chemi_, which we have seen had the same
significancy as חָם _ham_ in Hebrew, opens to the view the real meaning
of a few Hebrio-Coptic words that grew into common use among the Hebrews
subsequent to their bondage in Egypt. We allude solely to the
derivatives of Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _Chemi_. כֹּמֶר _Chemar_ is thus derived, and
occasionally used by the holy writers to signify black; thus, _Lam._ v.
10: “Our skin was _black_” נִכְמָ֔רוּ _ni chemaru_. True, some have
disputed the accuracy of this translation. They take a cognate meaning,
and say _our skin was hot_, &c. We hope to be excused for adopting the
received version. But either meaning proves the origin of the word from
the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ _chemi_, the same as the _ham_ of the Hebrews. The fact
is, the cognate meaning, sometimes, necessarily forces itself into an
English translation, as in _Gen._ xliii. 30: “For his bowels did yearn,”
נִכְמְרוּ _grew hot_, _warmed_, became agitated, &c. 1 _Kings_ iii. 26:
“Her bowels _yearned_,” נִכְמְרוּ _grew hot_, _troubled_, &c.; and also
_Hosea_ xi. 8: “My repentings are kindled,” נְכְמְרוּ _became hot_, &c.
But in all these instances the figure of speech is more particularly
Asiatic, and more obscure than is well suited to our modern dialect, as
we think will be seen by comparing them with _Job_ iii. 5, “Let the
blackness of the day terrify it.”
From this Coptic name of HAM has _also_ been derived the appellative
term of the Moabitish and Ammonitish god כְּמֹוּשׁ _Chemosh_. The
Syrians applied this term to the fancied being who oppresses mankind
during the dark hours of their sleeping, and hence _distressing dreams_,
_incubus_, &c. _Chemosh_ is ranked with the god of destruction among the
Hindoos, _Muha Dēvā_. The worshippers of this god are in Scripture
called עַם־כְּמוֹשׁ _am Chemosh_, the people of Chemosh, particularly
the Moabites and Ammonites. The image of this god was a _black stone_.
The term applied to the priesthood in this worship among the black
tribes is also derivative from the same Coptic word to which we have
often added in translation the word “idolatrous.” Thus, 2 _Kings_ xxiii.
5, “and he put down the _idolatrous_ priests הַכְּמָרִים _ha chemarim_.”
_Hosea_ x. 5, “And the _priests_ thereof” כְּמָרָיו. _Zeph._ i. 4, “And
the name of the _Chemarims_,” הַכְּמָרִים _ha Chemarim_, i. e. the
_priests_ of the Hamitic fire-worshippers, &c. Some commentators, not
connecting these words with the Coptic, and the _priest_, as the term
applies, with the black families of Ham, have conceived that the idea
_blackness_, as associated with these idolatrous priests, had reference
to their apparel. Hence they conceive that these priests always wore
black apparel; whereas the fact is they were _black men_, and, as such,
are described by a term indicating that fact, as well as that of their
idolatry and descent; and here we find the foundation of that modern and
common prejudice, that the appropriate dress of the clergy is _black_.
But we find another derivative from the word _Ham_, _Gen._ xxxviii. 13:
“And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy _father-in-law_ חָמִיךְ goeth
up.” 25: “She sent to her _father-in-law_,” heḥāmîhā So also 1 _Sam._
iv. 19: “And that her _father-in-law was dead_.” 21. “And because of her
father-in-law,” חָמִֽיהָ. This word is used in the feminine in _Micah_,
vii. 6, thus: “Against her _mother-in-law_,” בַּֽחֲמֲֹתָ֑הּ _la hamtha_.
We notice the word is preceded by the word כַּלָּה, which word, in
_Gen._ xxxviii. 11, is applied to _Tamar_, and in _Jer._ ii. 32,
evidently to a “bride” taken from the heathen, which was forbid; and is
also used in _Cant._ iv. 8, for the “spouse,” who is made to declare
herself a _black woman_, giving evidence that the word in _Micah_ is
used in character.
This word is also used in the feminine in _Ruth_ i. 14: “And Orpah
kissed her _mother-in-law_,” לַּֽחֲמוֹתָ֔הּ _la hamotha_. ii. 11: “All
that thou hast done unto thy _mother-in-law_,” חֲמוֹתֵךְ _hamothek_. 18:
“And her _mother-in-law_ saw what she had done,” _hamotha_. 19: “And her
_mother in-law_ (_hamotha_) said unto her;” “and she showed her
_mother-in-law_,” _la hamotha_. 23: “And dwelt with her
_mother-in-law_,” _hamotha_. iii. 1: “Then Naomi her _mother-in-law_,”
_hamotha_. 6: “All her _mother-in-law_ bade her,” _hamotha_. 16: “And
when she came to her _mother-in-law_,” _hamotha_. This is certainly not
the most usual word in Hebrew to express the idea of _parent-in-law_.
But these instances of its use are too frequent, its declination too
varied, and in both genders, to admit the idea that they are the result
of error or casualty, although some lexicographers seem to reject it. It
may be noticed that the individual holding the junior position was a
female—that in each case the _parent-in-law_ was most unquestionably of
pure Shemitic race.
But suspicion may at least be allowed to such purity in these young
females. Tamar’s husbands were half of Canaanitish blood. It would be
expected that she was of that race, but if not, her intermarriage with
those sons of Judah placed her in that rank. The sons of Eli were
notoriously wicked and licentious, and although the widow of Phinehas
appears to have been of a devout cast, yet God had determined to destroy
the house of Eli on their account, and to wrest the priesthood from the
family. The suspicion as to her race grows out of these facts and the
character of her husband. Ruth was declaredly a Moabitess, and Orpah was
of that country.
Much might be said in favour of the position that in these cases the
parents-in-law on the husband’s side were of pure Shemitic blood, and
the reverse as to the daughters-in-law. Now as this peculiar term is
nowhere else used in the holy books, are we not to suppose that this
peculiar state of facts is nowhere else thus described? In _Gen._
xviii., when the _father-in-law_ of Moses is named, this term is not
used, but the more usual one; and the reason is because the position of
the parties is changed. Had the father or mother of Moses been spoken of
as the _parent-in-law_ of Zippora, then we may presume this peculiar
term would have been used and expressed the fact as to the distinction
of races; that he would have been called חֲמִ֖יהָ, and she her חֲמוֹתָה.
And we now present the inquiry, how came the name of Ham to be thus
compounded and used to express this particular position of relationship
and distinction of race, unless from the fact that he had placed his
parents in a similar position, liable to have been called by these
peculiar terms?
------------------