Chapter XXII: Part 22

But again: Noah had been preaching the then impending ruin near a hundred years. Lamech might well have had some glimpses of the subdiluvian world, and certainly saw the consequential ruin to young Ham, of the holy family of Noah, from such a connection with his daughter, Naamah. It could not otherwise than operate as a moral death to all the high hopes of him and his posterity. In case such connection was formed, and Lamech was forward in aiding or influencing it, then well might his troubled soul exclaim to his two wives as related.

But in case Ham did take to wife this daughter of Lamech, we might expect her name also to be held in remembrance by her posterity, as we have seen to some extent was that of Cain; and if we find such fact to exist in regard to her, it will be to our mind strong additional proof, that the descendants of Ham were in common the descendants of Cain. We notice here the fact, which we may hereafter deem necessary to prove, that, of the children of Ham, Cush originally settled in Arabia and the southwestern parts of Asia generally, Misraim in Egypt, Phut in the northern parts of Africa and southward indefinitely, and Canaan in Palestine.

When this latter country came to be conquered by Joshua, he found a city by the name of “Naamah,” situated in that portion which was given to the tribe of Judah. See _Josh._ xv. 41. But we shall directly see that there must have also been another city by the name of “Naamah,” situated probably in the region originally occupied by Cush. The book of Job is supposed to have been written as early as the days of Abraham. One of the men named in it is Zophar the “Naamathite.” See _Job_ ii. 11; also xi. 1.; also xlii. 9. He was an inhabitant of “Naamah,” at a much more ancient period than the time of Joshua. Job is represented as of the land of “Uz,” far distant from the land of Canaan, in the eastern parts of Arabia. His intimate friends and acquaintances cannot be expected to have been of so distant a country as was the land of Judea. The evidence is then that there must have been a city in the land of Cush by the same name. But in _Gen._ x. 7, one of the sons of Cush is called _Raamah_: we think those who will examine the subject will find this term a mere alteration or adulteration of _Naamah_, as there are many others, a tedious explanation of which might not be excused at our hand. Suffice it then to say that among the Cushites at a very early period one whole tribe were called “_Naamathites_,” distinct from the _Naamathites_ that lived in the city of _Naamah_ conquered by Joshua. Another variation of this word will be found in the word “_Hamathites_,” _Gen._ xvi. 18. This word is used, differently varied, in _Num._ xiii. 21, xxvi. 40; _Judges_ iii. 3; 1 _Kings_ x. 65, xiv. 21–31; 2 _Kings_ v. 1–27; 2 _Sam._ viii. 9; 1 _Chron._ viii. 4, 7; 2 _Chron._ viii. 3, xii. 13; _Isa._ x. 9, also xi. 11, also xvii. 10; _Ezek._ xlvii. 16, 20, also xlviii. 1, and perhaps many other places; and in all cases in reference to individuals, the people and country of the Canaanites, and no doubt in memory of their great female progenitor, Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, of the race of Cain.

------------------

LESSON VIII.

Before we close this branch of our inquiry, let us examine into the significancy and composition of the name “Naamah,” as applied to the daughter of Lamech: and we take occasion here to say how deeply we are indebted to the labours of the Rev. Dr. Lee, the regius professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, England, and whom we have no question in believing to be among the most penetrating oriental scholars of the age. By an intimate knowledge of the Asiatic languages, he discovered that in many instances where, in a cognate case, the Heemanti would be used in Hebrew, in them the word was supplied with a particle, changing or influencing the sense. Upon full research, he determined that the Heemanti, in Hebrew, were the fragments of ancient or obsolete particles, still influencing the significance as would have done the particles themselves. Let us take an example in our own language: _able_ implies fulness of power; add to it the prefix _un_, and you reverse the sense wholly. Yet we do not perceive, without reflection, that the prefix really is a contraction of something similar to “_I am not_,” &c.

With this door open to a constitutional knowledge of the language, let us take the word צם _am_. The terminating aspirate of the word Naamah will be readily formed from this by the usual feminine, as a fragment of the בּוּת later בַּת _bath_. And for the prefix _nun_, we beg leave to quote from Lee’s Lectures, pages 123 and 124:

“We come now to propose a conjecture on the prefix _nun_, and on the modification of sense which primitive words undergo in consequence of its influence. If then we take this (נ) as the defective form of some primitive word, appearing sometimes in the form of הנ, at other times as נ only, we may suppose it to have been derived from the (Arabic) root, which, had it been preserved in Hebrew, might have been written הָנָֽה _hanah_, אָנָה _anah_, or אָנָא _ana_. The senses attributed to it by Castell (in his Arabic Lexicon) are, among others, ‘ad extremum perfectionis terminum pervenit—assecutus fuit, seu percepit—retinuit, detinuit, coercuit,—lenitate, modestia et patientia usus fuit,’ &c. Supposing this word, or some defective form of it, to be construed with any other, the sense of both taken together would, in general, give the force of the forms thus compounded. And as this form of compound is often in the leading word of one of the conjugations, it becomes the more important to ascertain its properties. Primitive words receiving this particle will have a sort of passive sense, or will exhibit subjection to the action implied by the primitive accidentally, but not habitually. Words receiving this augment, subjecting them to the action implied by the primitive word, may, when the context requires it, also be construed as having a reciprocal sense, or as implying possibility,” &c.

Now then, let us present examples of the influence of this particular Heemanti: —שָׂכּוּר _sakur_, _a hireling_, one whose habit is to be hired, one whose occupation is that of being hired by others. Add נ _nun_, and we have נִשְׂכָּ֔רוּ _niskkaru_, as in 1 _Sam._ ii. 5, and translated thus: “They that were full have hired out themselves for bread.” The idea in Hebrew is: They who were habitually full, from the force of the circumstances influencing the case, have been compelled to hire themselves to others for bread. The _sakur_ is a hireling from habit, from constitution, from custom, &c., and which idea enters into the meaning of the word. But the prefix of the proposed Heemanti at once destroys all idea of habit, fitness, constitution, or custom; but yet the individual is a “hireling,” but only as the force of circumstances influencing the case compelled him to be so. Thus this Heemanti gives a reflective quality, reflecting back upon the agent or actor, as thus: שָׁמַר _shamar_, _he guards_, נִשְׁמַר _nishmar_, _he guards himself_; that is, under the force of circumstances affecting the case, he was compelled to guard himself. Thus כּמר _chemar_ is sometimes used to express the idea _black_, as a constant, habitual quality. In _Lam._ v. 10, we find it with this Heemanti, thus, נִכְמָ֔רוּ _nichemaru_, “our skin was black;” not that their skin was naturally and habitually black, but made so by the facts of the case: and this same word, with this Heemanti, is used in _Gen._ xliii. 30, and translated, by attempting to express a Hebrew cognate idea, into “_yearn_.” The idea is, his bowels did not habitually “yearn,” but the action was forced upon him by the facts of the case; and the same again in 1 _Kings_ iii. 26. In _Hosea_ xi. 8, we find it again translated “my repentings are kindled:” because his people were bent on backsliding, which would cause the Assyrian to be their king, and war to be in their cities continually, and their bad counsels themselves to be destroyed, his repentings were forced to be “kindled.” See the passage.

This particle then prefixed to the word עם _am_, with its feminine termination, makes the word נעמה _Naamah_, with the meaning, under the condition of things, she was to become a people distinct to herself; not that she would be a people absolutely, by the habitual action of constituent ability, but she would be a people distinct to herself, only as the peculiar influencing causes made her so,—showing also that these causes gave distinction and character to her posterity. Thus her very name shadowed forth the condition of her race. A Frenchman goes to England, or _vice versa_: a generation passes and nationality is lost. Not so with the Ethiopian. For “though thou wash thee with nitre and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.” _Jer._ ii. 22.

A form of the word “Naamah” is used in character of a masculine plural, in _Isa._ xvii. 10, and translated “pleasant,” as if from נעם _nam_. Forced to differ from this translation, we beg leave to place the whole passage before the scholars of the day:

כִּ֤י שָׁכַ֙חַתְּ֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׁעֵ֔ךְ וְצ֖וּר מָֽעֻזֵּ֭ךְ לֹ֣א זָכָ֑רְתְּ עַל־כֵּׄן תִּטְּעִי֨
נִטְעֵ֣י נַֽעֲמנִים וּזְמ֥רַׄת זָ֖ד תִּזרָעֶֽנּוּ׃

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 word זְמֹרַה _zemorath_, is often translated a song, as “The Lord Jehovah is my strength and song.” See _Ps._ cxviii. 14 and _Isa._ 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 term _result_, although imperfect, will give a better view of the prophet’s idea in this place than the _song_. In this sense this word is used in _Gen._ 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.” See _Exod._ xxx. 33; _Levit._ xxii. 10, 12, 13, where “_zar_” is translated “stranger;” also, _Job_ xix. 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 to _sow seed_, hence to _scatter_ and _destroy_. 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 word נַ֥עֲמָנִ֔ים _Naamanim_, is, a people whose cultivation would be abortive 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) plant _Naamathites_,” (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.” _Amos_ ix. 7.

------------------

LESSON IX.

By referring to the instances where we allege are to be found variations of the names _Cain_ and _Naamah_, 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 word _grian_ meant 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 idol _Crom-Cruach_, often called _Cean 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 names _Knoc-greine_ and _Tuam-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 from _Grian-Beacht_, the sun’s circle. A point of land near Wexford is called _Grenor_, the sun’s fire, and the town of _Granaid_, because the sun was worshipped there. And we may notice a still greater variation in _Carig-Croith_, the rock of the sun—and even our present word _grange_, from the almost obsolete idea, a place enclosed, separate and distinct, but open to the sun, now used as a synonyme of _farm_.

Let us take our word _fire_, and we shall perceive remarkable changes through all the languages from the Chaldaic down. _Gen._ xi. 28, “_Ur_” is translated from אוּר which 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, _Job_ xxxviii. 12; also, in the plural, _Isa._ xxiv. 15: “Wherefore glorify ye the Lord in the fires?” It is here ארֻים _urim_. Because fire emitted light, it became used to mean light. The words _urim_ and _thummim_ meant lights or fires, and truth: among the fire-worshippers the same term meant _fire_ and _sun_. The Copts called their kings _suns_. Hence from this term they took the word _ouro_, to mean the idea of royalty; their article _pi_, made _piouro_, the sun or the _king_, which being carried back to the Hebrews, they made it _Pharaoh_; but the sun was regarded as a god, and hence the Egyptian kings came to be called gods; but the Chaldaic and Hebrew אוּר, when applied to fire or the sun by the Copts, as an object of worship, was distinguished from the idea of royalty by the term _ra_ and _re_, with the particle _pira_ and _pire_, generally written _phra_ and _phre_. Hence the Greek πυρ, _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 word ראי _rai_, a mirror, vision, the god of vision, and by figure a conspicuous or illustrious person. But according to Butman, the Sanscrit root _Raja_ is 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 Greek _radios_ is at least derived through the channel indicated; and we now use the term _ray_ to mean an emanation from great power. Our word _regent_ is also from the same source, through the Latin _rex_, and may be found, slightly modified, through all the European dialects. And it may be remarked that, cognate therewith, we have the Arabic word _raiheh_, or _raygeh_, 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 words are 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.

Thus μορφη in Greek, becomes _formæ_ in Latin; _regnum_ becomes _reign_; _cœlum, ciel_; _ultra jectum, Utrecht_; and עבד _ebed, eved_, as variously pronounced, meaning a _slave_, becomes _obediens_, _obedienter_, _obedio_, _obedientia_, in Latin, and _obey_, _obedient_, &c., in English. The Celtic _ros_ becomes _horse_, and the English _grass_ becomes _garse_. Consonants of the same order are interchanged; p becomes _b_, and b _v_, d _t_, g _k_ and sometimes _n_,—φ becomes _ph_ or _f_, d or t becomes _th_, and g or c _gh_. 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.

------------------

LESSON X.

WE have heretofore remarked that such names as are derived from _Cain_ or _Naamah_ are 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, (עֶבֶד _ebed_, a _slave_,) an Egyptian, (מִצְרִ֖י _Mitsri_, a _Misraimite_, a descendant of the second son of Ham,) whose name was Jarha. And Sheshan gave his daughter to Jarha his servant, (עֶבֶד _ebed, slave_) to wife.” 1 _Chron._ ii. 34, 35. Proving the wisdom and truth of the saying of Solomon, “He that delicately bringeth up his servant (עֶבֶד _ebed, 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 was _Naamah_, an _Ammonitess_.” 1 _Kings_ xiv. 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 was _Naamah_, an _Ammonitess_.” 2 _Chron._ 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.” 1 _Kings_ xi. 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 the present 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 2 _Chron._ 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, and _Naaman_, 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, and _Naaman_, 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. And _Naaman_, and Ahiah, and Gera, he removed them, and begat Uzra and Abihud. And _Shaharaim_ begat children in the country of Moab, after he had sent them away.” 1 _Chron._ 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 that _Naaman_ is distinguished most clearly to be of that class.

It will be readily perceived that _Muppim_ מִפֻּיִ֥ם, in Genesis, is formed from מֹף _Moph_, and thus used in _Hos._ ix. 6: “_Memphis_ (מַֹף _Moph_) shall bury them.” Our word is a Hebraism of the Coptic word נֹף _Noph_, the _Nod_ of Genesis, the _No_ of the prophets Ezekiel and Nahum, and finally confounded with _Memphis_.

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 were _Memphites_.

So the word _huppim_ הֻפִּים is formed from the quite ancient word הַף _haph_, which means innocence, purity; whence also the word הָפָה _haphah_, covered, shielded, protected; and hence, הֻפָּה _hupah_, _bride-chamber_, _the marriage-bed_, and _marriage_ itself. In this sense the word is used in _Joel_ ii. 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 idea _purity_, the Arabians borrowed from it their word جار _hhar_, to mean _white_, which was quickly introduced into Hebrew in the word הוּר _hur_, and הוֹר _hor_, to mean _white_ also. Hence, Mount הָור _Hor_, “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 the _pure stock_, _legitimate_ and _white_.

The word וָאָֽרְּדְּ _va ard_ or _ared_ in Genesis, and אַ֣רְדְּ _ard_ or _ared_ in Numbers, is changed by _dagesh_ and transposition into אַדָּר _addar_ in 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 Arabic غَرَض _gharadh_, and the Syrian ܕܓܳܪܳܕ _dharadh_, and from whence עֲרָד _harad_ or _arad_; yet there is nothing more common than for _aleph_ and _ghain_ to 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 in _Num._ xxi. 1, xxxiii. 40, _Josh._ xii. 14, and _Judges_ i. 16, as the name of a Canaanitish city. The Arabic is more guttural than Hebrew, and it has two _ghains_, one more guttural than the other, distinguished by רְבִיעַ _rĕviă_, a _resting upon_; thus, in translating Arabic into Hebrew, the one will take the Hebrew _ghain_, but the Arabic _ghain_ with which this word is spelled is at once converted into the Hebrew _aleph_; 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 the _wild ass_, (see _Dan._ v. 21;) but the Syriac gives it _effrænatus_, _effrænis fuit_, and the Arabic, _durus fuit_, _fugit_. Such, then, being its signification in these languages, we may well perceive its adaptedness to the _wild 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 a _wild man_;” he was illegitimate, mixed-blooded. The term can apply to no other than such a race as that of Ishmael,—_wild_, _illegitimate_, and of _impure blood_.

In Numbers we find _Shupham_, and in Chronicles _Shephuphan_, substituted for the _Muppim_ in Genesis; both being the same word in different forms. The root is שֶׁפִי _shephi_, a high situation; hence שָפַט _shaphat_, a judge, and its derivatives are applied to the person or thing adjudged. Hence שִׁפְחָה _shiphehhahh_, a _female slave_; (See _Gen._ xvi. 16; i. 2, 3; also xx. 14; also xxxii. 22;) and hence, also the Syrian ܫܳܦܦܰ _shafefa_, a _serpent_, because the serpent had been adjudged, condemned. Whence the Hebrew _shephiphim_, 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 beautiful _paronomasia_ in the word _Dan_, which also means a judge, _judge_ and the _serpent_. But the serpent is called שְׁפִיפ֖ןֹ _shephiphon_, 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 to _Manahath_.” _Manahath_ was 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 called _Bela_, 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_, and _Gera_, he removed them. * * * And _Shaharaim_ begat children in the land of Moab after he had sent them away.” This explains the whole matter. _Shaharaim_ is a plural formation of _Shihor_, and means _black_. “_And these blacks begat children in the land of Moab after he had sent them away_,”—that is, _Naaman_, _Ahia_, and _Gera_; further establishing the fact that the word _Naamah_ is kept in remembrance only by the descendants of Ham. One class of the race of Benjamin is described in Genesis as _Memphites_; 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 why they 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. See _Judges_ xix. xx.

------------------

LESSON XI.

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.

------------------

LESSON XII.

In the inquiry, What evidence have we that the Canaanites were black? we may find it necessary to refer to various facts which have come down to us, connecting their history with that of the Israelitish people.

Perhaps no fact could be better established than that Abraham lived on the most friendly terms with the Canaanites. He was a confederate with their kings. When they lost a battle, he retrieved it. They treated him with the utmost regard, and he them with a generous liberality. Could he not have wedded his son among them, to whom he chose?

“And Abraham said unto the eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell.” _Gen._ xxiv. 2, 3.

Under the circumstances of the case, what could have influenced such a determination?

“And Rebecca said unto Isaac, I am weary of my life, because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth, such as those which are the daughters of the land, what good shall my life do me? And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.” _Gen._ xxvii. 46, xxviii. 1.

On what rational ground are we to account for this extraordinary repugnance?

The conduct of the sons of Jacob does not determine them to have been very sincerely religious. The soul of Shechem, a prince of the country, clave unto Dinah their sister; he was rich, and offered ever so much dowry for an honourable marriage with her; and to show his sincerity, even abandoned his old, and adopted their religion. There must have been some other deep and unalterable cause for their unchangeable aversion to that proposed marriage of their sister.