Chapter XXIII: Part 23

“When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;

“And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou shalt smite them and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:

“Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.” _Deut._ vii. 1, 2, 3.

The laws of God are always predicated upon some sufficient cause: in such cases we may ever notice a tendency towards the prevention of deterioration.

“Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.” _Ex._ xxii. 19.

The terms Japhet, Laban, Hor, and their derivatives in significancy ever include the idea white, of a light colour. These terms are applied among the descendants of Japheth and Shem, as the appellatives of their races and individual names, and as adjectives in description of their personal appearance, too frequently to permit a doubt of these families belonging to the white race.

There is but a single case in all the holy books, where any of these terms is applied to a person of colour, and which we trust we have explained; and if our view be correct, how came the poet to require its use there, unless to elevate the character he celebrates! Do we use any term to signify that a person is white in a country where there are none but white people? Whatever evidence then there may be that the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were white people, is also just as positive testimony that the Canaanites were black. See _Gen._ xxvi. 34, 35.

But in Judges i. 16, we find that the family of the race of Ishmael out of which Moses took his wife are denominated Kenites. We think that we have abundantly proved that they were black. From this connection of Moses, the Israelites seem to have felt some regard for that race. Now it appears that some of that descent were afterwards residing in the cities of Amalek; for we find in 1 Samuel xv. 6, that “Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get ye down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed.” How should it be a fact, since they were black, that he could not distinguish them from the Amalekites, unless the Amalekites were black also?

The Amalekites were Canaanites, notwithstanding they claimed Esau in their ancestry. “Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan. Adah the daughter of Ebon the Hittite; * * * and Adah bore to Esau, Eliphaz; * * * and Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son; and she bore to Eliphaz, Amalek.” _Gen._ xxxvi. 2, 4, 12.

The Amalekites were one of those tribes, that the Israelites were particularly commanded to destroy from off the earth; and in them, he who amalgamates with the daughters of Ham may see his own prospect as to posterity.

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

LESSON XIII.

There are circumstances in evidence that the descendants of Ham were black, more properly referable to the whole family than to either particular branch.

Among this class of circumstances, we might mention the tradition so universal through the world, that we know no age of time or portion of the globe that can be named in exception, that the descendants of Ham were black; and that the fact announced by that tradition is made exceedingly more probable by the corresponding tradition, that the descendants of Japheth and Shem were white.

The holy books provide proof that Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, were white. Their descendants sojourned in Egypt in a state of bondage about four hundred years, in the course of which time there was a law that all the male Hebrew children should be put to death at their birth. When the mother of Moses put him in the ark of bulrushes, she would have disguised his birth as much as possible, for the safety of his life. Yet no sooner had the daughter of Pharaoh beheld the infant than she proclaimed it to be a Hebrew child. If there was no difference of colour, from whence this quick decision as to the nationality of an infant three months old?

But during the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, it is to be apprehended there was more or less commixture between the two races; and, if the two races were of different colour, that there would have been left us some allusion to such offspring; and so we find the fact.

“And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, besides children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them.” _Exod._ xii. 37, 38. The word “_mixed_” is translated from עָרָב _ereb, arab_. The word means of _mixed-blood_, that is, the mixture of the white man with the black; and in consequence thereof is often used to mean black itself, and is universally applied as the appellative, and has become the established name of the mixed-blooded people of Arabia, the _Arabs_; and because it became a common term to express the idea black, a dark colour, &c., it was applied to the raven; and even at this day, who can tell whether Elijah was fed by the _ravens_ or the _Arabs_, because the one word was used to mean both or either. _And a multitude of persons of colour, of Hebrew and black parentage, went up also with them._

This word is used to express the idea of a mulatto race, in _Num._ xi. 4, and the “_mixed multitude_;” also _Neh._ xiii. 3, “They separated from Israel all the _mixed multitude_;” also _Jer._ xxv. 20, 24, thus: “And all the mingled people,” _mixed-blooded_, “and all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the _mingled people_,” _mixed-blooded people_. By the expression _mixed multitude_, it is clear Moses included the offspring of the Hebrew with the race of Ham. But would there have been such distinction if there was no difference of colour? It will be recollected that the children of Ishmael were three-fourths of Misraimitish blood, consequently quite dark. It will also be recollected that when Esau perceived how extremely offensive to his father and mother was his connection with the Canaanitish women, that he took wives of the house of Ishmael. It should also be recollected that Ishmael named one of his sons _Kedar_. As we shall hereafter refer to this word, we propose to examine its meaning and formation. It is of Arabic derivation, _Arab._ درࣨ, Hebrew דַּר _dar_, and in this form is used _Esth._ i. 6, and translated _black marble_. With the prefix of the Hebrew koph it becomes קֵדָר _Kedar_, and is equivalent to “_the black_.” It is used in Hebrew to mean black, in 1 _Kings_ xviii. 45; _Job_ vi. 16, 30, 28; _Isa_ lx. 3; _Jer._ iv. 28; _Ezek._ xxxii. 7, 8, and many other places. The very name of the son of Ishmael was tantamount to “_the black_.”

In the poem called Solomon’s Song, the female whose praises are therein celebrated, says, “I am _black_, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of _Kedar_, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me because I am _black_; because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me, they made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyards have I not kept.” _Cant._ i. 5, 6.

The word _black_, which twice occurred in the text, is translated from שָחַר _shahar_, with many variations. The words mean abstractly the idea _black_. Examples of its use will be found in _Lev._ xiii. 31, 37, thus: “And there is no _black_ hair in it.” “And there is _black_ hair grown up therein.” _Job_ xxx. 30: “My skin is _black_ upon me.” _Zech._ vi. 2, 6: “And in the second chariots _black_ horses. The _black_ horses that are therein.” _Lam._ iv. 8: “Their visage is _blacker_ than a coal.” _Cant._ v. 11: “His locks are bushy and _black_ as a raven.” There is no mistake about the meaning of this word; she was surely _black_, and she says that she is as _black_ as the tents of _Kedar_.

The inquiry, then, now is, who was she? When we take into consideration the Asiatic mode of expression, from the term “because the sun hath looked upon me,” we are forced to understand that she was from a more southern region. That she was not a native of Palestine, or especially of Jerusalem. Figures of somewhat analogous import are occasionally found among the Roman poets. But we suppose, no one will undertake the argument that she was black, merely because she had been exposed to the sun!

In vii. 1 of the Hebrew text, she is called _Shulamite_. Some suppose this is a formation of the Gentile term שׁוּנֵם _Shunem_, because they say the _lamda_ was sometimes introduced. In that case it would be the synonyme of _Shunamite_, and would locate her in the tribe of Issacar. But we see no necessity of a forced construction, when a very easy and natural one is more obvious. We omit the _dagesh_. שׁוּלַמִית _Shulammith_ is readily formed as the feminine of שְׁלֹמֹה _Shelomoh, Solomon_, after the Arabic form شُليْمَنࣨ _Suleiman_, and, so used, would be quite analogous to what is now quite common—to apply the husband’s name as an appellative of the wife. Upon the occasion of her consecration into Solomon’s household, she well might, even at that age, be called by a term that would imply such consecration, especially in the poem celebrating her nuptials. And we may remark that the use of this word is in strict conformity to the usage of the Hebrew and Arabic poets, because it creates an implied _paronomasia_, derived from שׁוּל, signifying that she was a captive by her love to Solomon, and if she stood in any such relation to him politically, the beauty of the figure would at that age have been considered very greatly increased. The poets, at that age of time, in compositions of the character of this poem, appear to have been ever on the search for an occasion to introduce figures of this class; and the more fanciful and extreme, the more highly relished. We fail therefore to derive any knowledge of her origin from this term. We have dwelt upon this particular thus long, merely because commentators have been so desirous to find out a clue to the history of the poem. Some commentators of elevated character, suppose this subject of their epithalamium to have been the daughter of Pharaoh, simply because she was _black_, and is addressed: “O prince’s daughter!” Undoubtedly she was the daughter of some prince or king. But the question now, is of what one? There is no probability that the kings of Egypt, nor even the nobility of that kingdom, had been of the race of Ham for many ages. Egypt had been conquered by the Shemites as early as the days of Abraham, and there is no proof that the descendants of Ham ever again ascended the throne; although, perhaps, their religion had been adopted by their successors from motives of policy, the great mass of the population being of the old stock.

In fact, the mixed-blooded races, and indeed the Shemites of pure blood, have, from time immemorial, shown a disposition to settle in Egypt. The Persians and the Greeks have also, for a very long time, aided in the amalgamation of the Egypt of the middle ages of the world.

But she is made to say that she is “the rose of Sharon;” as much as to say, _the most excellent of her country_. This district of country will be found to embrace the Ammonites, and perhaps some other of the ancient tribes of the family of Ham, at that time under the government of Solomon. And, iv. 8, we find Sharon called by its Ammonitish name, amid a cluster of figures having relation to the locality and productions of that country.

In short, the whole body of this extraordinary poem points to the region of the Ammonites for her native place of abode. Now, since Solomon had an Ammonitess by the name of Naamah for a wife, and since he selected her son to succeed him on the throne, it seems at least quite probable she was the person it commemorates; and that fact will make quite intelligible the allusion to her having been elevated from a servile condition. But, nevertheless, if it shall be thought not sufficiently proved that she was the mother of Rehoboam, yet she surely was of some one of the Canaanitish or Hamitic tribes, and was as surely black; and so far is in direct proof that the descendants of Ham generally were black also.

There are incidents of this poem which it would seem cannot be explained on other ground than that this marriage was one of state policy on the part of Solomon; and the queen upon this occasion selected was from some one of the heathen nations of the descendants of Ham, whom he had subjected to his government. It will be recollected that these nations, whom the Israelites had failed to destroy, had omitted no occasion to make war on the Hebrews, from the time of Joshua down to that of David; and that they occasionally had them in subjection.

Solomon had no guarantee how long his rule over them would prove quiet, or how far they would yield obedience to his successor. What could induce him to marry an Ammonite princess, and place her son upon his throne, if not to effect this purpose? Even at the time of the nuptials a reference to this political union might well find a place in the songs to which it gave birth. We introduce one of the incidents to which we allude: we select the close of the sixth strain. This poem is written in the form of a dialogue, mostly between the bride and groom.

_Solomon._ Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee.

_Naamah._ What will ye see in the Shulamite?

_Solomon._ As it were the company of two armies.

This surely needs no comment. The poem had already recited every mental and personal quality; was it then unnatural delicately to allude to her political importance? The art of the poet, however, to cover the allusion, recommences a view of her personal charms, changes his order, and commences with her feet.

Much learning has come to many untenable conclusions concerning this poem, among which, that of the Targum may be placed in the lead.

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

LESSON XIV.

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?

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

LESSON XV.

We suggest some origin, some complexion of thought, from whence may have emanated the word “Ham,” and its derivatives, as found to have existed in the days of the prophets; and we may here state that the Shemitic languages seem to exist all in a cluster, like so many grapes; nor are we able to say which stands nearest the vine. Doubts may be raised as to the priority of any one named; yet we might adduce some proof that the Coptic is younger, as we could that the Greek is younger still.

The Arabic word مَا _ma_ corresponds with the Syriac ܡܳܐ _ma_, and the Hebrew מָה _mah_, and has been translated into the Latin _quid_, as an interrogatory, used in all languages very elliptically. Thus, _Gen._ iv. 10: מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָ “_What have you done?_” If the עָשִׂ֑יתָ had been omitted, the מֶ֣ה would have expressed the whole idea.

It was an interrogatory expression of exclamation and astonishment, to one who had committed a heinous offence. So when Laban pursued, Jacob said, מָה _mah, What is my trespass?_ &c., as if in derision,—_What is my horrid crime?_ Ever since the days of Cain some have manifested wicked acts, as though they were operated on by some strong desire, some coveting overwhelming to reason,—as if the action was in total disregard of the consequences that must follow it. This state of mind seems to have been expressed, in some measure, by the particular use of this particle. Let us conceive that such a state of mind must be a heated, a disturbed state of mind, as was that of Cain, and as must have been that of Jacob, had he stolen the goods of Laban. The word thus incidentally expressive of such an idea, by being preceded or influenced by a particle implying particularity, giving it definiteness and boundary, must necessarily be converted into an action or actor, implying some portion of the primitive idea; and hence we find הֵֽמָּה and همُّ and هَمَي _ham_ and _hami_ in Arabic, ܚܳܡ _ham_ in Syriac, to mean a cognate idea, i. e. _to grow hot_, &c., _to boil_, _rage_, &c., sometimes _tumult_, &c., &c. And we now ask, these being facts, is it difficult to point in the direction of the origin of the word Ham? Nor is it a matter of any importance, if the relationship exists, whether the noun and verb have descended from such exclamatory particle, or the reverse; yet we can easily imagine, in the early condition of things, that the mind, taking cognisance of some horrid act, would impel some such exclamation, and that it would become the progenitor of the name of the act or actor.

However this may be, each Hebrew scholar will inform us that the word הָם is an irregular Hebrew word. Grammarians have usually arranged words of this peculiar class among the Heemanti and augmented words, and they have accurately noticed that the punctuatists have always preceded the ם _mem_ by a (ָ) _Kamets_, or a (וֹ) _Kholem_. This circumstance has induced Hiller to suppose that the ם _mem_, as a _Heemanti_, was a particle, while the adjunct was either הֵם or אוֹם; but all agree that the form of these nouns shows that they are intensive in their signification.

If then הָם _ham_ is a particle of הָמָה _hamah_, which carries with it the ideas before named, it may be less difficult to conceive how the particle, when added to other nouns, will make them intensive also, while the particle itself would be used alone to express some intensity in an emphatic manner, more particularly of its root.

But we find the word חָ֞ם _ham_, as applied to the son of Noah, from the root הָמָה _hammah_, or חֵמַה and used in Hebrew thus: In _Josh._ ix. 12, “This our bread we took hot חָ֞ם for our provision,” &c. _Job_ xxxvii. 17, and vi. 17: “How thy garments _warm_ (חַמִּ֑ים _hammin, hot_) when he quieteth the earth by the south wind.” “What time they wax warm, they vanish when it is _hot_,” בְּ֝חֻמּ֗וֹ _behummo, in the heat_. So _Gen._ viii. 22: “While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, cold and heat וָחֹ֜ם, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.” _Gen._ xviii. 1: “And he sat in the tent door in the heat בְּחֹ֥ם of the day.” 1 _Sam._ xi. 9–11: “To-morrow, by the time the sun is hot, (בְּחֹ֣ם _be hom, in heat_.) And slew the Ammonites until the heat of the day,” עַדחֹם _ad hom, until the hot_. xxi. 7 (the 6th of the English text): “To put _hot_, חֹ֔ם _hot_ in the day,” &c. 2 _Sam._ iv. 5: “And came about the _heat_ of the day,” כְּחֹ֣ם _ke hom, at the_ _hot_. _Isa._ xxiii. 4: “Like a clear _heat_ כְּחֹם upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat בְּחֹ֥ם of harvest.” _Hag._ i. 6: “Ye clothe you, but there is none warm,” לְחֹ֥ם _be hom, not hot_. _Jer._ li. 39: “In their heats,” בְּחֻמָּם _be hummon, in their heats_, &c.

But in Hebrew, as in some other languages, the phonetic power expressing the idea _hot_, _heat_, &c. was cognate with rage, stubbornness, anger, wickedness, &c. &c., and hence we say _hell is hot_, and hence, in _Dan._ iii. 13, 19: “Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage,” חֱמָֹא _hama_, _heat_, _hot_. “Therefore shall he go forth with great fury,” בְּחִמָּ֣א֥ _be hama_, _heat_, _rage_, _fury_, &c.

Should it be said, the words in their declination, or rather the affixed and suffixed particles, differ, and are marked with different vowel points, we answer by quoting _Lee’s Heb. Lex._ p. 205: “This variety in the vowels may be ascribed either to the punctuatists or the copyists, and is of no moment. But as the word חָם _ham_ was thus applied in Hebrew to the original idea of active caloric, as emanating from the sun, so it will agree with its homophone in Arabic and Syriac; for let it be noticed, that the Arabic word حَمٌّ _ham_ or _haman_, means to be _hot_, as of the sun. So the Syriac ܗܡܳܐ _hama_ means _œstus_, _calor_, &c. But in _Deut._ xxxii. 24, 33, it is translated _poison_; thus, poison of serpents, and ‘the poison of dragons,’ from the notion that great heat, rage, anger, &c. are cognate with poison.”

This word occurs in _Zeph._ ii. 12. The received version is, “Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall _be_ slain by my sword.” The original is, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה, and has been subject to much investigation. Gesenius considers the word הֵֽמָה a pronoun in the second person, and Lee seems to side with him, but says, “the truth is, the place is inverted and abrupt, and should read thus: גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י כּוּשִׁ֔ים הֵֽמָּה,” and which he translates thus—“_Even ye (are) (the) wounded of my sword_,—they are _Cushites_.” We do not perceive how he has made the passage more plain. Let us, for a moment, examine how the Hebrews used this form חֵמָה or חֵם, that we may the better comprehend its sense in the present instance. _Jer._ v. 22: “Though they _roar_,” וְהָמ֥וּ _ve hamu_, _rage_, &c., “yet can they not pass over it!” vi. 23: “Their voice roareth like the sea,” יֶֽהֱמֶה _rageth_, &c. xxxi. 35; “Which divideth the sea, when the waves thereof _roar_,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּ _say ye_, _hemen_, _rage_, &c. li. 15: “When her waves do roar (וְהָמ֤וּ _ve hamu se_, _rage_, &c.) like great waters.” _Isa._ li. 13: “But I am the Lord thy God that divided the sea, whose waves roared,” _raged_. li. 13: “Because of the _fury_ (חֲמַ֣ת _rage_, &c.) of the oppressor,” “and where is the fury (חֲמַ֥ת _hamath_, _rage_, &c.) of the oppressor?” li. 15: “whose waves _roared_,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּ _raged_, &c. _Ps._ xlvi. 4 (the 3d of the English text): “_Though_ the waters thereof _roar_ (יֶֽהֱמ֣וּ _rage_, &c.) and be troubled,” יֶחְמְ֣רוּ _great agitation_, _rage_, &c.

But let us take a more particular view of this word, as used in the passage from _Zephaniah_. The Septuagint has translated this passage in Καὶ ὑμεῖς Αἰθίοπες τραυματίαι ῥομφαίας μοῦ ἐστέ, which is very much like our received version.

But it should be noticed that it has translated the Hebrew word חַלְלִ֥י into τραυματίαι; τραῦμα would imply the injury, wounds, carnage, or slaughter of a whole nation, army, or body of people; but τραυματίαι implies individuality, and reaches no farther than the person or persons named. The prophet had been uttering denunciations against many nations, but in this passage emphatically selects the Ethiopians as individuals; and the Greek translator evidently discovered there was in this denunciation something peculiarly personal as applied to the Ethiopians.

The Hebrew conveys the idea of reducing, subjecting, or bringing low, as by force, to cause to sink in character as in _Ps._ lxxxix. 40 (39th of the English text): “Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast חִלַּֽלְתָּ _wounded_, _subjected_, or _reduced_ his crown to the earth.” _Ezek._ xxii. 26: “Her priests have violated my law, and have חַלְּל֣וּ (_wounded_, _subjected_, _lowered the character of_) my holy things.”

But the word חַלְּלֵי is here used in the construct state, showing that the idea imposed by this word was brought about by the following term, חַדְבִי֖, which the Septuagint translates rhomphaias, which properly means the Thracian spear; but חַרְבּי means any weapon, a goad harpoon as well as a sword. The fact is, neither of these words were the usual Hebrew or Greek term to mean a sword. The Greeks would have called a sword μάχαιρα, and the Hebrews חֲנִית or דֹחַמ or כִּדוֹן, or perhaps שׂכה; and Dr. Lee has given Ἅρπη as the Greek translation of חַרְבִ֖י, which means a sickle, a goad for driving elephants, &c. It was a thing to inflict wounds by which to enforce subjection, and the idea is that the Ethiopians are covered by wounds by their being reduced by it, or that they shall be. When Jeremiah announced captivity and slavery to the Egyptians and the adjacent tribes, he used this word as the instrument of its execution. Thus _Jer._ xlvi. 14: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish in Migdol, and publish in Noph, and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee, for the _sword_ חֶ֖רֶב shall devour round about thee.” 16: “Arise and let us go again to our own people, and to the land of our nativity, from the oppressing _sword_,” חֶ֖רֶב. Many such instances might be cited, showing the fact that, in poetic strain, this was the instrument usually named, as in the hand of him subjecting others to bondage; and much in the same manner, even at this day, we use the term “whip,” in the hand of the master, in reference to the enforcement of his authority over his slave.

In a further view of the word חֵמָּה, as used in this passage, we deem it proper to state that Gibbs considers it a pronoun of the third person plural, masculine, _they_, and adds, “sometimes” (probably an incorrectness drawn from the language of common life) “used in reference to women,” and quotes _Zech._ v. 10; _Cant._ vi. 8; _Ruth_ i. 22. And he further adds, “It is used for the substantive verb in the third person plural, 1 _Kings_ viii. 40, ix. 20; _Gen._ xxv. 16; also for the substantive verb in the second person, _Zeph._ ii. 12: ‘Also, ye Cushites חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה _shall be slain by my sword_.’” _Gibbs’s Lex._ p. 175. In Stuart’s Grammar, p. 193, he says, “_Personal pronouns of the third person sometimes stand simply in the place of the verb of existence_;” e. g. he cites _Gen._ ix. 3, _Zech._ i. 9, and says, “Plainer still is the principle in such cases, as follows: _Zeph._ ii. 12, ‘Ye Cushites, victims of my sword אַתֶּ֣ם הֵֽמָּה are ye.’”

The fact is, the verb of existence, called the verb “to be,” and the verb substantive, in Hebrew, as in all other languages, is often not expressed, but understood. This circumstance is well explained in Gessenius’ Hebrew Grammar, revised by Rodiger, and translated by Conant, p. 225, thus, “When a personal pronoun is the subject of a sentence, like a noun in the same position, it does not require for its union with the predicate a distinct word for the copula, when this consists simply in the verb ‘to be,’ אָֽנֹכִ֣י הָֽרֹאֶ֔ה ‘_I (am) the seer_,’ _1 Sam._ ix. 19.” And again: “The pronoun of the third person frequently serves to convert the subject and predicate, and is then a sort of substitute for the copula of the verb _to be_, e. g. _Gen._ xli. 26: ‘_The seven good cows_, שֶׁ֤בַע שָׁנִים֙ הֵ֔נָּה _seven years_ (are) _they_.’” To say in English, “The seven good cows, seven years they,” would be thought too elliptical; but we do not perceive how the expression converts “_they_” into the verb “to be.”

But again, the same author says, p. 261: “The union of the substantive or pronoun, which forms the subject of the sentence, with another substantive or adjective, as its predicate, is most commonly expressed by simply writing them together without any copula. 1 _Kings_ xxiii. 21: יְהוָ֤ה הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ ‘_Jehovah_ (is) _the true God_.’” The idiom of the language then does not necessarily convert הֵמָּה in the passage before us into the verb “to be.” And here let us repeat the sentence, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַֽלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה _Zeph._ ii. 12. It will be perceived that גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם are connected _by Makkaph_. Hebrew scholars do not agree as to how far this character is effective as an accent. But the rules for its use are—“Makkaph is inserted in the following cases: 1. Particles, which, from their nature, can never have any _distinctive_ accent, are mostly connected with other words by the mark _Makkaph_: גַּם־לְאִישַׁהּ _even to her husband_; בְּתָם־לְבָבִ֛י _in the integrity of my heart_. _Gen._ xx. 5, &c. 2. When words are to be construed together, &c., as זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ _its seed_ (is) within itself. _Gen._ i. 11,” &c.—_Lee’s Lectures_, p. 61.

But Stuart, seeing no way to translate the sentence without making הִ֖מָּה the verb “_to be_,” 3d person plural, “_are_,” takes אַתֶּ֣ם the personal pronoun, 2d person plural, equivalent to _ye_ or _you_, away from גַּם, to which it is attached by _Makkaph_, and carries it down to precede הֵמָּה in the sentence, and thus reads “_are ye_,” while he supplies another אַתֶּם֣ as understood to precede כּוּשִים, and reads, “ye Cushites, victims of my sword are ye.” We consider this as quite as objectionable as Dr. Lee’s—“_Even ye_ (are) (the) _wounded of my sword,—they are Cushites_.”

But permit us now to inquire into the probability of הֵמָּה being even a pronoun. אָנכִי _a-no-khi_ is not believed to be a Hebrew word. It is a homophone of the Coptic word Ⲁⲛⲟⲕ, and used by the Egyptians, who spoke Coptic, as the personal pronoun _I_. This word is believed to have been borrowed by the Hebrews at the time they were in bondage in Egypt, and the habit of it so strongly established during their four hundred years of servitude, that neither the literature of the age of Moses nor the genius of the people could ever eradicate it. Their original personal pronoun was probably totally lost; nothing analogous to this Coptic term can be found in any other of the Shemitic tongues. But Lee says that Gessenius has found it in Punic, and quotes Lehrege-baude, note, p. 200. In Chaldaic, _the personal pronoun, first person singular_, is אֲנָה _a-nah_, and its phonetic cognates are found in all the other sister dialects. We may then well suggest that _the lost_ Hebrew term was אֲנָא _a-na_, or quite analogous thereto.

Such then being the facts, let us inquire into the origin, composition, and signification of this Coptic pronoun. It will be agreed that some language must have had precedence in the world, and it is usually yielded to the Hebrew. That such precedence was the property of some one of the Asiatic dialects all agree; and the nearer the subsequent language exists to its precedent, the more plainly will its descent be manifest. If the Hebrew was such precedent, or any other of its immediate sisters, the Coptic, existing in their immediate neighbourhood, must have been originally very analogous to them.

It is immaterial whether our suggestion be right or wrong as to what particularly was the lost Hebrew pronoun; let us take the Chaldaic, which, of all these dialects, was the most nearly like the Hebrew—the personal pronoun אֲנָה _I_, _I am_, and the word כִּי _ki_, which means a _mark as a stigma_, indelibly fixed, as burned in, a mark intended pointedly to indicate something; and hence it became a particle attached to a word often by Makkaph, whence the attention was to be particularly called, as, _mark me_, _mark ye_, are _just_, &c. &c. _Isa._ iii. 24: pm tr1 he 'כִּי תַחַת יוׄפִי' 'kî taḥat ywpî' _a burned mark of stigma_, instead of beauty. Some have doubted the accuracy of the Hebrew in this instance, and the fact is, no doubt, that it is rather an Arabicism; but that in no way affects our deduction; it matters not whether the Coptic borrowed from Chaldean, Hebrew, or Arabic. These two words are beyond question the origin, the compound of the Coptic pronoun, meaning and including the individuality of the first person singular, and originally expressing also the fact, that such person was _marked_ as a stigma indelibly, _as burned in_, &c. _Anoki, I, a marked one_; _I, one deformed as if_ _branded_, &c.; _I, one that carry the mark of_, &c. &c., was the original idea expressed by this Coptic term of individuality. Thus it expressed the fact that the person was a successor in the curses of Ham and Cain, and in no other manner can the extraordinary appearance of הֵם and sometimes הֵמָּה in the third person of the pronoun be accounted for. It is evidently from a new and other source, the same or cognate with the term applied to the son of Noah.

These adjective associations of the pronoun, through the lapse of ages, would naturally be forgotten by the Copts themselves, and were probably unknown to the Hebrews; just as we ourselves have forgotten that our word _obedient_ still expresses some of the qualities of the Hebrew word עֶבֶד _ebed_ and _abed_, from which it has been derived through the Latin.

This pronoun אָנׄכִ֖י _I_, &c. was often contracted by the Hebrews into אֲנִ֖י _ani_, and in its declination stood thus:

_1st person singular, common gender_:
אָנכִי sometimes אֲנִי _I_.
_Plural_:
אֲנַֽחְנוּ _We_.
_2d person singular masculine_:
אַתָּ֖ה _Thou_.
_Plural_:
אַתֶּ֖ם _You_.
_Singular feminine_:
אַתְּ _Thou, fem._
_Plural_:
אֲתֶּן _You, fem._
_3d person singular, masculine_:
הֽוּא _He_.
_Plural_:
הֵ֥ם _hem_—occasionally הֵ֖מָה _They_.

Here we find the word in question, if a pronoun. The feminine of the third person is הִי֖א, and plural נָה, and yet הֵֽפָּה is used in _Canticles_ in a condition evidently feminine; and yet in _Zeph._ ii. 12, it is said it must be in the _second person plural_. But can any one believe that these words, thus arranged in the declination of this pronoun, could ever have had a common origin? The fact is, no original language was ever formed from rules; the rules are merely its description after it is formed. Language, in the infancy of its formation, resents restraint and all laws, except such as apply to its incipient state. Suppose a soldier for life should persist in calling his infant son _soldier_, either playfully or mournfully; the child would associate the term “soldier” with his individuality, and say _soldier am sleepy_, &c. In case the soldier’s family was isolated from the rest of the world, in the land of Nod, or elsewhere, then the family of languages would be quite apt to have a new term as a personal pronoun.

More pertinent examples would explain our idea perhaps more fully. There never was a language upon this earth, of which any thing is known, that does not show an extraordinary irregularity in the formation of its personal pronouns,—often giving proof that the different cases and persons have been formed from different roots. Webster says—“_I_, the pronoun of the first person, the word which expresses one’s self, or that by which a speaker or writer denotes himself.” “In _the plural_, we use _we_ and _us_, which appear to be words radically distinct from _I_.” Under _we_, he says, “From plural of _I_, or rather a different word, denoting,” &c. Does any one imagine that _I_, you, me, and _us_ are from the same root? Webster noticed the discrepancy; we could have hoped that he would have given the world a history of the personal pronoun of all languages: we know of no intellect more capable. Such a history would develop many curious things in the history of man, but would be attended with great labour; and human life has too few days for such a man.

Thus we may, hypothetically at least, point out the class of operating causes whereby the Copts introduced הֵם or occasionally הֵמָּה as a person of the pronoun, with the signification that the person to whom it was applied was a descendant of the son of Noah; and the pronoun so introduced derived from the noun חָם _Ham_. For, can we suppose the _first person singular_ אָנֹכִ֖ה _a-no-ki_, and its third person plural הֵ֖ם _hem_, occasionally הֵֽמָּה _hemmah_, have the same root, or are of the same origin? This הֵם and the word חָם _the son of Noah_, are identical, except the son of Noah is generally written with a _heth_, instead of a _he_; but all know, who have studied the matter, these characters very often interchange, and that copyists have often inadvertently placed the one for the other. That which would seem the pronoun is used in _Gen._ xiv. 5, and the Septuagint has translated it as a _pronoun_; but our received version has no doubt restored the true reading. The passage בְּהָ֑ם is translated “in _Ham_,” _i. e._ the land occupied by the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah. The change of _Kamets_ into _Tsere_, is really of no moment. These characters were never invented until after the language ceased to be spoken, and was long since dead. The points, in reality, are no part of the language. The word in Genesis is indisputably a noun, preceded and governed by the _preposition_ בְּ.

Perhaps no one has ever yet succeeded to satisfy himself and others in the translation of this passage of Zephaniah; all, or others for them, find it full of difficulty: but let us consider הֵמָּה a noun of the same order as the הָם of xiv. 5 of _Genesis_,—in some respect in apposition to כּוּשִים, but more emphatic, as the affix of ה would seem to indicate, by its increase of the intensity, as well as its accounting for the _dagesh_ of the מ _mem_, or its duplication. Let us consider it to mean the descendants of Ham,—to express the idea, with great intensity, that the _Cushites_ were _Hamites_. True, it is not in the usual form of a patronymic. But we know not who will account, by grammatical rules, for all the anomalies found in Hebrew, a language so full of ellipses that some have thought it a mere skeleton language. With this view of the subject it will read elliptically, thus: _So ye Ethiopians wounded of the sword, Hamites_—with the meaning, that the Ethiopians were subject to bondage, and at the same time putting them in mind that the curse of slavery, as to the posterity of Ham, was unalterable.

The meaning of the prophet is—So ye Ethiopians, reduced to a condition of bondage, remember ye are the inheritors of the curse of Ham!

The arrangement of the language to us clearly indicates that sense. Besides, we must take into consideration the peculiar meaning of the words חַלְלֵי and חַרְבִּ֖י— that the prophet is writing in a highly figurative and poetic strain; and we would also compare what this prophet says to the Ethiopians with what the other prophets have said of the same people. כּוּשִׁים is here applicable to all the tribes of Ham, as in _Amos_ ix. 7: “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me? O children of Israel, saith the Lord.” It may be well here to notice also that the word “Ethiopian” is of Greek origin, and associates with the idea blackness, like that of Ham. Thus, Αιθιοπς, _Aithiops_,_ sun-burnt_, _swarthy as Ethiopians_; αιθος, _warmth_, _heat_, _fire_, _ardent_, _blazing like fire_, _blackened by fire_, _black_, _dark_; αιθοπς, _burning_ _fiery_, _blazing_, _burned_, _darkened by fire_, _dark-coloured_, _consuming_, _destroying_. _Donnegan_ p. 34. But Isaiah speaks of the descendants of Ham perhaps in a more figurative language, and in a more elevated and poetical strain:

1. Wo to the land shadowing with wings,
Which _is_ beyond the rivers of Ethiopia:

2. That sendeth ambassadors by the sea,
Even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters,
_Saying_, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled;
To a people terrible from the beginning hitherto;
A nation meted out and trodden down,

3. Whose land the rivers have spoiled!
All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth,
See ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains,
And when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye!

4. For so the Lord said unto me, I will take my rest,
And I will consider in my dwelling-place,
Like a clear heat upon herbs,
And like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.

5. For afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect,
And the sour grape is ripening in the flower,
He shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning-hooks,
And take away and cut down the branches.

6. They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains,
And to the beasts of the earth;
And the fowls shall summer upon them,
And the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them.

7. In that time shall a present be brought unto the Lord of hosts,
Of a people scattered and peeled,
And from a people terrible from the beginning hitherto;
A nation meted out and trodden under foot,
Whose land the rivers have spoiled,
To the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion.
_Isa._ 18.

The denouncements of Jehovah against the children of Ham are more plainly expressed in the promises of God to these of the true worship, his peculiar people: