wards — give to Kittim a wider, extension than can well be deduced from Xth Genesis;
for Jeremiah (ii. 10) and Ezekiel (xxvii. 6) speak of the,state3 or “ isles of Kittim:I
the latter with reference to works in ivory thence imported. Greece was celebrated
for chryselephantine manufactures, certainly in the 30th Olympiad, 660 B. c., and perhaps
before.
In the Hebrew text of the doubtful parts of Isaiah (Ixvi. 19), Tarshish, (Tarsus),
P h il (probably Y&m-phylia), Lud (Lydia), Thubal (Paphlagonia), Javan (Ionia), and
Kittim, are grouped together; hence their proximity is inferable.
Josephus adopts the Oriental form of personification when he relates that “Kethimus
possessed the island of Ketldma, which now is called Cyprus; and from this, by the
Hebrews, all islands and maritime places are termed Kethim.”
Hence, modern researches unite upon the island of Cyprus as the centre-point of
probabilities— Citium, x i n o v j t o X i j , of Ptolemy, a city in Cyprus, now K iti; and the
Phoenician Citiaci, applied by Cicero; justifying the adoption. Confirmed, moreover,
by Boeckh’s Greek inscriptions, wherein TO ty’X, a ‘ man of KiTi,’ is explained by
Kituvs ; a Kitian, or Cypriote.
But the true position of Kitium, as Cyprus, is now fixed by “ coins of the anonymous
kings of Cittium; ” no less than by a cuneatic inscription of the time of the Assyrian
king Sargon (recently found at Lamica, and conveyed to Berlin), which oarries
the name back to the eighth century B. o. Egyptian monuments, elucidated by Birch,
enable us to behold it again in hieroglyphics of the thirteenth century B. 0 ., where the
“ Chief of the Khita, as a living captive,” surmounts one of the prisoners of Ramses III.
Nor is this our earliest record ; because the KeFa, portrayed in the “ Grand Procession”
of Thotmes III. [supra, p. 159, Fig. 82], are said to come “ from the isles in
the sea,” i. e. Cyprus; and, again, “ Khefa (Cyprus), Khita (Kettisei),” stands registered
in the sculptures of Amunoph III., at Soleb. So the people, and their island, are as
old as the XVIIIth dynasty, or the sixteenth century b . c .
The inhabitants of Cyprus in particular, and of the adjacent coasts and islands in
general, are undoubtedly the KiTilM (Cypriots) of the later projector of Xth Genesis—
a conclusion ratified by their propinquity to the nation immediately succeeding.590
1 4 . D’J " n — D D M M — ‘ D o d a n im ’ ; p l u r a l o f Dodan.
Between Dodanim of Xth Genesis, and Dodanim of 1 Chron. i. 7, a lif&fal discordance,
produced by the error of some unknown transcriber* leaves the decision for posterity
(as Cardinal Wiseman declares in respect to 1 Tim. iii. 16) to ‘‘ rest on what judgment
it can form amid so many conflicting statements! ” Who, from the text alone, can tell
whether we must read Dodanim in Xth Genesis, or Dodanim in 1 Chronicles ? In consequence,
conjecture has had fuil scope; and Bochart’s ingenious assimilation of the
river Rhodanus, Rhone, has been seized upon by a standard Anglican divine (Bishop
Patrick, to wit), who beholds in France the country of the R o d a n im ! “ Our old chroniclers,”
says Champollion-Figeac, “ equally robust etymologists as able critics, do they
not found the realm of France by Francus, one of the sons of Hector, saved expressly
from the sack of Troy ! ” The Hungarians caused Attila to descend from Nimrod in a
straight lin e ; the Danes, from the Danai issuing from Dodona, crossed the Danube, to
which they gave their name, and finally settled in the country they named Da>nemarh!
Dodanim possesses advocates; and of course Dodona, in Epirus, site of Grsecia’s most
ancient oracle, at once suggests that the Dodoncei must be the people intended. Nor,
except its remoteness from the neighborhood of other proper names whose geography
is tolerably positive, can a negation be absolutely demonstrated.
However, the Samaritan Pentateuch, reading Rhodians where the LXX have P6koi,
affords a preponderating vote in favor of the R. And, other conditions being equal,
this fixes attention on the isle of Rhodes; by excluding the possibilities of D. Its
early Grecian occupancy; its location between Cyprus and AEolia ; and their common
affiliation from Ionia ; support the view that Roioy, the roseate island of the Rhodians,
was the habitat of the Genesiacal R o d a n I m . 591
H am im , or Swarthy Races.
□n — BiJI-KAM— “Affiliations of Ham.”— Cren. x. 6.
15. n D — BUS — ‘Cush.’
By the LXX, and in the Vulgate, this word, whenever translated, is made to figure
under the Greek form of Aidioma, AEthiopia, Through Cruden’s Concordance, it appears
that Cush is transcribed in King James’s Version as if in the primary Hebrew Text the
name had occurred only five times : whereas, if we restore to its relative passages in
the Text the original KUS, in every instance where in our version we find its supposed
equivalents, ‘ Ethiopia,’ ‘E th io p ia n ‘Ethiopians,’ it will be perceived that Cush is repeated,
(5-f- 3’4 = ) thirty-nine, times in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures,
It may occur to a simple believer in plenary inspiration to inquire, why, and upon
what principle of logic or- philology, the translators of our authorized version—“ By Her
Majesty’s special command—» appointed to be read in Churches” — took upon themselves
the suppression of the Hebrew word KUSA thirty-four times, and its preservation
only five ? How happens it, that strict uniformity was not adopted ; and that they
did not either substitute Ethiopia all the way through, or preserve the original Kush
in every instance ; according to the consistent method of Cahen, in his much more
accurate translation ? To answer such queries is beyond human power* because the
aforesaid translators did not know themselves: but some explanation may be found in
the fact that, little versed in Hebrew literature, the fifty-four revisers, in 1603, followed
the versions, and not the Text ; as our Part III. thoroughly establishes.
Investigation must first be directed towards the Hebrew triliteral KUS. Its translation
by the Greek word Ethiopia is a secondary inquiry. t^lD, KUS, are its radicals ;
and must, have been its components, at whatever time, and in whatever alphabet, anterior
to the Hebrew square-letter (not invented until the third century after c.), the Xth
chapter of Genesis was first written. The diacritical points, added by the Masoretes
after the sixth century of our era, make its sound KUSÀ ; whilst, as regards its original
Hebrew phonetism, the terminal Sh is (Chaldaically) likely, and we adopt it in
the form KUS A.
What did KUSA signify, in the mind of the compiler of Xth Genesis ? There is not
one per mil of our contemporary divinity-students who will not glibly reply — “ Ethi-
pia, to be sure — Africa, above Egypt ” !
[ Five years have passed since the authors of the present volume denounced such
answer to be simply ridiculous (J. C. N. : Biblical and Physical History of Man, 1849,
pp. 138-146;—G* R. G. : Otia AEyyptiaca, 1849, pp. 16, 133—4). Between replies so
diametrically opposed there can be no reconciliation. One of the two must be absolutely
false. Among the many, however, who have felt themselves called upon to contravene
our assertions, not having hitherto met with one person really acquainted with
the Hebrew alphabet, we may be excused by Hebraists from recognizing as “ Biblical
authorities” those teachers who (even the articulations of K, J, being to them unknown)
are yet ignorant of the A, B, O, of Scriptural language, meanings, and. history.
It was the authors’ intention, when projecting “ Types of Mankind,” to publish
an investigation of Ethiopian questions, sufficiently copious and radical as to leave
few deductions ungrounded ; and their MSS. were prepared accordingly : but, so
much extra space has been occupied by Part I., that “ copy,” to the extent of some
200 of these pages, must be suppressed for the present. The reader will, in cpnse-
quence, be lenient enough to accept dry references, in lieu of logical argument. If '
“ truth” be the object of his search, we feel confident that our bibliographical indices
will at any rate place such reader on the easiest route of verification. — G. R. G.]
Bochart’s words show that we were not the first, by more than 1000 years, to claim
61