Usually reckoned to be the ancient land of Ethiopia, which of course is only a very short boat-ride from Arabia Felix, as evidenced by the flight of Muhammad's earliest disciples to Abyssinia (just thirty-five miles at the southern tip of the Red Sea, where I have posted red flags on the map - so close, but either side of the water, that you need to enlarge the map to confirm that there really are two). You will see in a moment why I am making this point.
Genesis 2:14, establishing the location of Eden, "certainly believes it to be" Ethiopia; scholars who accept this then deduce that, since Eden is encircled by the river Gichon (גיחון), the Gichon must therefore be a name for the Nile, though there is no other evidence of the name anywhere else (the Tanach generally names it Ye'or); and anyway that would place Kush much further west, in Sudan or Nubia (Upper Egypt), not Ethiopia. So Kush may well be Ethiopia, but Gichon cannot be the Nile, and sadly (sadder for the endlessly famine-stricken people than the hungry and thirsty scholars) there is no other river in the region which could be counted as a synonym for the Nile.
Genesis 10:6 names Kush as a son of Cham (חם). Chem was the Egyptian name for Upper or Nubian Egypt, not that of Ethiopia. One of Kush's brothers, according to this passage, was Mitsrayim (מצרים), confirming the two as different; his other brothers are Put (פוט) and Kena'an (כנען), which is to say the other principal countries of the region: Lower Egypt, which is also known as Libya though that should not be mistaken geographically for modern Libya, and Kena'an. But see also my final note to Genesis 5:32.
His sons are listed as:
Seva (סבא), which Josephus believed to be the island of Meroe (or Meroë) on the east bank of the Nile, though this is dubious (Josephus is about as unreliable as Wikipedia).
Genesis 10:6 names Kush as a son of Cham (חם). Chem was the Egyptian name for Upper or Nubian Egypt, not that of Ethiopia. One of Kush's brothers, according to this passage, was Mitsrayim (מצרים), confirming the two as different; his other brothers are Put (פוט) and Kena'an (כנען), which is to say the other principal countries of the region: Lower Egypt, which is also known as Libya though that should not be mistaken geographically for modern Libya, and Kena'an. But see also my final note to Genesis 5:32.
His sons are listed as:
Seva (סבא), which Josephus believed to be the island of Meroe (or Meroë) on the east bank of the Nile, though this is dubious (Josephus is about as unreliable as Wikipedia).
Chavilah (חוילה), itself usually treated as the name for Ethiopia; again dubious.
Savtah (סבתה): as with Savtecha (סבתכא), a confusion which has led to three versions of the same name (in the way that one might list the counties of England and not realise that Hants and Hampshire were the same place).
Ra'amah (רעמה): the Septuagint text reckons it to be Ramah on the Persian Gulf, which is interesting, not simply because it is probably correct, but because it was Alexandrian Egyptians who translated the Tanach into the Septuagint, and they are quite clear that none of these places were in Egypt. In fact, all of it belongs to the Persian Gulf, and none of it to Ethiopia or Nubia, though the names do make that sea-voyage illustrated above.
A verse later, but deliberately separated from his "brothers", the text refers to Nimrod (נמרוד), the "mighty hunter before the Lord" who is the Chaldean equivalent of Orion, and the mythological purpose of his tale is the real key to understanding this table, as it is with so many others.
This section of names is fundamental to our understanding of the Tanach. Though many will dispute the etymological contentions, here is the evidence, for these are names that we know to be countries, yet here rendered as though they were men, brothers, sons.
The list as it stands transforms the Semites (descendants of No'ach's eldest son Shem) into Hamites (descendants of No'ach's second son Cham), and rather upsets the demography accorded to the sons of No'ach; another corroboration of the statement above.
Savtah (סבתה): as with Savtecha (סבתכא), a confusion which has led to three versions of the same name (in the way that one might list the counties of England and not realise that Hants and Hampshire were the same place).
Ra'amah (רעמה): the Septuagint text reckons it to be Ramah on the Persian Gulf, which is interesting, not simply because it is probably correct, but because it was Alexandrian Egyptians who translated the Tanach into the Septuagint, and they are quite clear that none of these places were in Egypt. In fact, all of it belongs to the Persian Gulf, and none of it to Ethiopia or Nubia, though the names do make that sea-voyage illustrated above.
A verse later, but deliberately separated from his "brothers", the text refers to Nimrod (נמרוד), the "mighty hunter before the Lord" who is the Chaldean equivalent of Orion, and the mythological purpose of his tale is the real key to understanding this table, as it is with so many others.
This section of names is fundamental to our understanding of the Tanach. Though many will dispute the etymological contentions, here is the evidence, for these are names that we know to be countries, yet here rendered as though they were men, brothers, sons.
The list as it stands transforms the Semites (descendants of No'ach's eldest son Shem) into Hamites (descendants of No'ach's second son Cham), and rather upsets the demography accorded to the sons of No'ach; another corroboration of the statement above.
The cause of the problem appears to be the use of the word Kush to mean "black men" i.e. Africans (there are innumerable references, too many to list; take my word for it, or check for yourself). So any black-skinned person, regardless of their origin, must come from Africa, which to the inhabitants of the Biblical world meant Nubia or Ethiopia, in the same way that a family which has lived in and around Baltimore for the last three hundred years is African before they are American, and a long-time resident of Notting Hill in London won't really count as British for several more generations, if even then. And once having made that racial distinction, the explanation of the remainder of the text must follow.
Psalm 7 tells of Kush ben Yemini, a Benjamite at the court of Sha'ul, though some say the name is applied to Sh'aul himself (they are confusing Kush for Kish, which was Sha'ul's father's name), or to Shim'i, another member of the Sha'uline clan according to 2 Samuel 16:5.
Psalm 7 tells of Kush ben Yemini, a Benjamite at the court of Sha'ul, though some say the name is applied to Sh'aul himself (they are confusing Kush for Kish, which was Sha'ul's father's name), or to Shim'i, another member of the Sha'uline clan according to 2 Samuel 16:5.
One possible explanation of the double-name Cush, for Babylonia and Ethiopia, is to speculate that the spelling of one or other is wrong, a consequence of an aural tradition being written down. The Tanach has both Cush (כוש), the spelling used here, but also Kush (קוש), meaning "to bend like a bow" or "to lay snares", which is precisely what a great hunter like Nimrod would do. The bow-carrier was Sagittarius, and astrology will explain the other names listed here. But note also that 1 Chronicles 15:17 has Eytan ben Kusha-Yahu ( אֵיתָן בֶּן-קוּשָׁיָהוּ).
Copyright © 2019 David Prashker
All rights reserved
The Argaman Press
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete