tainly is not a low one, that, in that race, we recover a portion of the family of Seba.”
In testimony whereof,- the reverend author quotes Burckhardt s description of the Do-
waser tribe of Arabs — “ very tall men, and almost black’’ — as well as passages from
Chesney, Niebuhr and Wellsted, corroborating the dark complexion observed by these
authoritative travellers among Bèdawees of the Persian Gulf ; to whom we could add
multitudes, were they needed.
Having indicated to the reader sufficient sources to substantiate the existence at this
day, in Southern Arabia, of tribes dark enough to justify Jeremiah’s simile' (xiii. 23), we
might proceed at once to the identification of KUSA .in its geographical affiliations.
Inasmuch, however, as one of the objects of the present work is to bring the archaeological
and ethnographical facts contained in Hebrew literature from out of a deplorable
mysticism into the domain of science, there are other scriptural passages that claim
priority of analysis.
1st. Isaiah (xi. 11) — “ from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from
KUSA, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of
the sea.” Circumscribed within the geographical limits to be established for the Hebrew
writers, Southern Arabia is here the equivalent of KUSA, because, otherwise, an
immense peninsula, very familiar to them, would be omitted.
2d. Isaiah (xviii. 1, 2) — the prophet in Palestine here apostrophises Egypt. ..We
have given Rosellini’s rendering in Part III., and need merely now remark that ‘IThe
rivers of KUSA” have no relation to the Nile, nor to “ Ethiopia” above Egypt, but are
the torrens Ægypti, the “ streamlets of Mizraim”—the Besor, Oorys, now “ Wàdee el-
Arish ; ” the winter-brook, or Seyl, which divides Palestine from Egypt at Rhinocorura.
Indeed, this is, and has ever been, the boundary-line; the extremest West; beyond
which, towards Africa, the word KUSA never passes, in the geography of the earlier
Hebrews : and, from that occidental line, it stretches backwards to the Euphrates and
its lower territories south-east of Syria. The term “ earlier ” Hebrews is used advisedly,
to distinguish those parts of their literature that belong to times preceding, the
Captivity, from others composed during and after, when KUSA may have .possessed a
less restricted sense. •
The most formidable objection to the Asiatic restriction of KUSA would seem to
originate from 2 Chronicles (xiv. 9,12 ; xvi. 8), where the rout of “ Zerah JAe KUSAem,”
with a million of combatants, by Asa, is described — events attributed to theiyear
941 b. o. But this has been ably overthrown by Wells, sustained by the later work of
Forster; who shows that- Gerar, whither Zerah the KUSAern fled, “ lay on the
border of the Amalekites and Ishmaelites, between the kingdom of Judah and the -
wildernesses of Shur and Paran;” and, consequently, the scene lies in Arabia, and
■ Zerah was some marauding potentate, probably Shiykh of a powerful Arab horde,
whose foray was repelled into the “ land of KUSA,” Southern Arabia, whence he came.
Saracus, moreover, (the classical transcription of Zerak-us,) was a proper name among
Kushean dynasties descended from Nimrod, and also in Arabian traditions. To. the
Egyptologist, in consequence, the now-preposterous identification of Zerah jAe.KUSAe®»
with OSORKON (as oSoRKon, or SRK), second king of the XXIId dynasty of Bu-
bastites, has long ceased to be of interest, because this text has no relation to Egyptian,
any more to “ Ethiopian,” events.
The narrow circle of geography comprehended by all ancient nations situate, around
the Mediterranean as late as the Persian period, in the sixth century B. o., to which the
Hebrews form no exception, forbids any such deduction as Jewish acquaintance with
Nigritia. That analogy and comparison of the literal texts do not require KUSA to
be sought out of South-western Asia in general, and Arabia in particular, in any Scriptural
passages, could be sho.wn text by text, did space allow. The “ onus probandi”
of the contrary may now be left to “ le théologien” — for, as Letronne philosophically
observed, “ ici le rôle de l’hagiographe commence ; celui de l’archéologue finit. ” “ Le
théologien,” neatly declares Cahen, “ en traduisant, ne perd jamais de vue son église,
son temple, sa synagogue ; borné par cet horizon, il allonge,¡raccourci, taille, entretaille,
ooptretaille, les pensées de son auteur, jusqu’ à ce qu’elles aient la dimension
voulue pour entrer dans l’enceinte sacrée. Tel est le faire du théologien ; nous ne le
blâmons pas ; mais ce n’est pas le nôtre.”
The reader, who may be pleased to verify the exactitude of the following results, will
be enabled to do so through the references appended to this condensation of a complete
chapter of our work, which lack of room compels us to curtail.
In hieroglyphics coeval with the Xllth dynasty at least, or 2200 years B. 0., an
African nation, situate immediately south of Egypt, always bore the following designation,
in one of many dialectic forms — as
Fig. 356.592 “ KSAI, barbarian country” ’, or spelt KASA, KeSA,
V — JAta K ' KiSA, or KSA; with or without the terminal I.
■ The human portraits, wherever accompany-
I 1 I ing this name on the monuments, are invari-
I ably Africans, but more generally of the dark
country, barbarian, mahogany-colored Nubian than of the jet-black
Negro type.
We contend that this proper name, which, indigenous to African Nubia, was ascribed
by the ancient Egyptians to Nubians alone, has no relation (except through fanciful
resemblances, produced in modern times, through corrupt vocalizations of Rabbis on
the one hand, and of Copts on the other,) to the Hebrew word KUS, conventionally
pronounced Kush, which, to the Jews, meant “ Southern Arabia," and no country or
nation out of Asia.
To render this clear, one must commence with a query — When, and how, was the
Old Testament translated into Coptic ? Quatremëre, sustained by tlm old Coptologists,
claims, “ que la Bible avait été traduite sur le texte hébreu en langue Egyptienne.” De
Wette and the Hebrew exegetists aver, that “ the origin of these versions (Memphitic
and Sahidic) is probably to be referred to.the end of the third and the beginning of the
fourth century ; for at that time Christianity seems first to have been extended to the
Egyptian provinces [it had not even then reached the temple of Osiris at Phibe]. Both
follow the Alexandrian version, but it is doubtful which of the two is the oldest.”
The question is somewhat important, inasmuch as upon it hinges whether the Copts
followed the LXX’s Greek mistranslation of AiJioirta, or the original Hebrew word KUS.
There can be Httle doubt that such translators imitated the Alexandrian Version, and
not the Text; and substitutedEthaush amdKoush for “ Ethiopia.” Champollion gives
P-KA-N-NGHOOSH, NEGOOSH, and ETHAUSH, from various Coptic topographical
MSS., as synonymes for the Greek AiSiom, the Arabic el-Sabesh (Abyssinia), and the
vulgar Ethiopia ; while Lenormant states — “ the Coptic books employ the same expression
(Kousch) that is frequently met with in its altered form,. Ethosch.” Peyron
and Parthey establish the same fact; but Lanci’s deeper philology traces Ethaoshunto
two Semitic radicals, heet — ‘ form,’ and abes = 4 to-be-black.”
Champollion’s Grammaire, Dictionnaire, and Notices Descriptives, prove that the great
master, whose discoveries were made through Coptic, always transcribes the ancient
hieroglyphical KSA by the modern Coptic form of Kousch, or Khoosh. Hence, it has
been universally taken for granted that Champollion’s Coptic transcript of the old hieroglyphical
African name of KiSA is identical with the Hebrew Asiatic KUS — that both
are oomprèhended under the Greek maltranslation of “ Ethiopia” by the LXX — and
thus Arabs and Nubians, the Arabian Peninsula and the Upper Nile, Hamitic and
Semitio distinct roots, have become jumbled up into “ confusion worse confounded ! ”
Now, it so happens that the old hieroglyphical KSA is never written with a medial
1 u,’ which is a radical “ mater lectionis” in the Hebrew. kUs — a strong point of dissimilarity
to begin with. On the former word, Birch had critically remarked — “ The
term Kash is a fluctuating and uncertain territorial appellation : it is supposed to be
the Kush of Scripture, the Thosh or Ethosh of the Copts, which, after all, is merely