Post by Atlantid on Oct 13, 2012 8:41:50 GMT -5
Seeming as some new posters have started some Biblical topics, I thought I would create a thread actually clarifying the Hamitic position on the Biblical Table of Nations.
Historicity and content
The Table of Nations is an ancient ethnographical list of tribes, appearing in the 10th chapter of the Book of Genesis.
The table preserves the names of many ethnic peoples the Hebrews encountered or knew of through trade links. For example, Gen. 10: 16 mentions the Amorites, who were a historical Semitic population of Syria. Most modern scholars date Genesis to the 6th century BC, however it is most likely the authors were drawing from earlier Mesopotamian literary sources (Graves and Patai, 2004). The authors of the table constructed a fictional geneaology for all tribes appearing on the list, linking them all to one of Noah's three sons: Shem, Ham or Japheth. As the distinguished Hebrew scholar Samuel Rolles Driver came to discover (1906: 112):
"The nations and tribes existed [...] imaginary ancestors were afterwards postulated for the purpose of exhibiting pictorially the relationship in which they were supposed to stand towards one another."
In other words while the table contains genuine ethnographical content, the genealogies of tribes were entirely fabricated by the Hebrews. This is evident by the table itself, for example some tribes listed as having descended from Shem, were not in fact Semites, having spoken a non-Semitic language (Bromiley, 1995: 388):
"The Elamites and Lydians (cf. Gen. 10:22) are not Semites in the modem classification, whereas the Amorites and Canaanites (which the Table of Nations considers to be descendants of Ham; cf. Gen. 10:15f.) are Semites".
Limited extent of ethnography
The tribes, or ethnic groups, appearing on the table are confined to a small area on the world map: largely the middle-east, but also segments of North Africa, Asia Minor and Europe (Rawlinson, 1878: 169; Winchell, 1880). Some Christian literalists, however wrongly interpret the table, to infer it describes everyone on Earth today as having descended from Noah's three sons. In reality, the limited ethnography of the table only covers the habitation of one race, Caucasoids. There are no Negroids or Mongoloids, on the table, since the authors had no knowledge of the eastern parts of Asia, or Sub-Sahara Africa when it was written (Ramm, 1954: 336):
"The Table of nations gives no hint of any Negroid or Mongoloid peoples"
Paul Heinisch in his History of the Old Testament (1952: 32) also notes:
"No reference is made to the Indians, Negroes, Mongolians, Malayans, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
The author names only the peoples within his sphere of knowledge."
Professor William F. Albright also came to the same conclusion:
"All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called White or Caucasian race"
Ham, not a Negro
It is commonly claimed by Christian literalists that Ham can be equated to the Negroid or "Black" race. However the Hamite tribes or ethnic peoples listed in Genesis 10 are in fact Caucasoid.
Christian literalists often assert that Ham, or the tribes associated with him were Negroid. This is usually based on the claim that the Cushites were African Ethiopians. However the "Cush" of Genesis does not refer to the Ethiopia in Africa today, but a former kingdom in Mesopotamia or Arabia, which also appears in ancient Greek literature as "Eastern Ethiopia".
The Old Testament is also clear itself that Cush itself sat outside of Africa:
*The first appearance of Cush in the Old Testament, is Genesis 2: 13, a passage which places it as a territory near to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, therefore in Mesopotamia.
*Habakkuk 3:7 describes the "tents of Cushan (Cush)". The ancient "tent" being only common in Arabia, not Africa.
*Moses' wife, Zipporah, is called a Kushite, yet at the same time is identified as the daughter of Midianite priest (Ex. 2: 21). The Midianites were certainly not Africans, but Arabians.
*Judges 3: 8, notes of a Mesopotamian king called "Cushan-Rishathaim".
*Ezekiel 29: 10 explicitly rules out Cush as being in Africa by a geographical reference.
Nott et al (1854, pp. 482-502) conclusively have shown that the listed tribes associated with Ham, are strictly only to be located within the Arabian or Mesopotamian (middle-east) region, and are therefore racially Caucasoid. The only exception being Mizraim, identified as Egypt and Put (Phut) as the North African Barbary Coast. As Edward Wells (1711: 100) noted:
"Cush, when put in scripture for a country or a people, is rendered Ethiopia or Ethiopians; but then this can be truly understood only of the Asiatic Ethiopia, or Arabia".
Sub-Saharan African territory, or Negroids, simply do not appear in the Old Testament. Some Christians often equate Moses' wife, Zipporah, to a "Black woman" to justify miscegenation, however in reality, according to scripture, Zipporah's ethnic descent is Arabian, and Caucasoid, not a Black Sub-Saharan African.
Sources
Driver, S. R. (1904). The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen.
Graves, Robert., Patai., Raphael. (2004). The Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. Carcanet Press Limited.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1995). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Nott, Josiah Clark, George R. Gliddon, Samuel George Morton, Louis Agassiz, William Usher, and Henry S. Patterson. (1854). Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches : Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History. Illustrated by Selections from the Inedited Papers of Samuel George Morton and by Additional Contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson. Lippincott, Grambo & Company.
Ramm, Bernard. (1954). The Christian View of Science and the Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Rawlinson, George. (1878). The Origin of Nations. Scribner.
Winchell, Alexander. (1880). Preadamites. S. C. Griggs.
Wells, Edward. (1711). An Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament. Vol. 1. London.
Edit: Obviously not all Sub-Saharans are Negroid, populations are mixed. Horners have varying degrees of Hamitic (Caucasoid) admixture. However the Biblical record and ethnography itself shows the Hebrews when the Old Testament was written had no contact with any Africans below Egypt. In other words the Old Testament is strictly a Caucasoid book.
Historicity and content
The Table of Nations is an ancient ethnographical list of tribes, appearing in the 10th chapter of the Book of Genesis.
The table preserves the names of many ethnic peoples the Hebrews encountered or knew of through trade links. For example, Gen. 10: 16 mentions the Amorites, who were a historical Semitic population of Syria. Most modern scholars date Genesis to the 6th century BC, however it is most likely the authors were drawing from earlier Mesopotamian literary sources (Graves and Patai, 2004). The authors of the table constructed a fictional geneaology for all tribes appearing on the list, linking them all to one of Noah's three sons: Shem, Ham or Japheth. As the distinguished Hebrew scholar Samuel Rolles Driver came to discover (1906: 112):
"The nations and tribes existed [...] imaginary ancestors were afterwards postulated for the purpose of exhibiting pictorially the relationship in which they were supposed to stand towards one another."
In other words while the table contains genuine ethnographical content, the genealogies of tribes were entirely fabricated by the Hebrews. This is evident by the table itself, for example some tribes listed as having descended from Shem, were not in fact Semites, having spoken a non-Semitic language (Bromiley, 1995: 388):
"The Elamites and Lydians (cf. Gen. 10:22) are not Semites in the modem classification, whereas the Amorites and Canaanites (which the Table of Nations considers to be descendants of Ham; cf. Gen. 10:15f.) are Semites".
Limited extent of ethnography
The tribes, or ethnic groups, appearing on the table are confined to a small area on the world map: largely the middle-east, but also segments of North Africa, Asia Minor and Europe (Rawlinson, 1878: 169; Winchell, 1880). Some Christian literalists, however wrongly interpret the table, to infer it describes everyone on Earth today as having descended from Noah's three sons. In reality, the limited ethnography of the table only covers the habitation of one race, Caucasoids. There are no Negroids or Mongoloids, on the table, since the authors had no knowledge of the eastern parts of Asia, or Sub-Sahara Africa when it was written (Ramm, 1954: 336):
"The Table of nations gives no hint of any Negroid or Mongoloid peoples"
Paul Heinisch in his History of the Old Testament (1952: 32) also notes:
"No reference is made to the Indians, Negroes, Mongolians, Malayans, Chinese, Japanese, etc.
The author names only the peoples within his sphere of knowledge."
Professor William F. Albright also came to the same conclusion:
"All known ancient races in the region [the biblical world] which concerns us here belonged to the so-called White or Caucasian race"
Ham, not a Negro
It is commonly claimed by Christian literalists that Ham can be equated to the Negroid or "Black" race. However the Hamite tribes or ethnic peoples listed in Genesis 10 are in fact Caucasoid.
Christian literalists often assert that Ham, or the tribes associated with him were Negroid. This is usually based on the claim that the Cushites were African Ethiopians. However the "Cush" of Genesis does not refer to the Ethiopia in Africa today, but a former kingdom in Mesopotamia or Arabia, which also appears in ancient Greek literature as "Eastern Ethiopia".
The Old Testament is also clear itself that Cush itself sat outside of Africa:
*The first appearance of Cush in the Old Testament, is Genesis 2: 13, a passage which places it as a territory near to the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, therefore in Mesopotamia.
*Habakkuk 3:7 describes the "tents of Cushan (Cush)". The ancient "tent" being only common in Arabia, not Africa.
*Moses' wife, Zipporah, is called a Kushite, yet at the same time is identified as the daughter of Midianite priest (Ex. 2: 21). The Midianites were certainly not Africans, but Arabians.
*Judges 3: 8, notes of a Mesopotamian king called "Cushan-Rishathaim".
*Ezekiel 29: 10 explicitly rules out Cush as being in Africa by a geographical reference.
Nott et al (1854, pp. 482-502) conclusively have shown that the listed tribes associated with Ham, are strictly only to be located within the Arabian or Mesopotamian (middle-east) region, and are therefore racially Caucasoid. The only exception being Mizraim, identified as Egypt and Put (Phut) as the North African Barbary Coast. As Edward Wells (1711: 100) noted:
"Cush, when put in scripture for a country or a people, is rendered Ethiopia or Ethiopians; but then this can be truly understood only of the Asiatic Ethiopia, or Arabia".
Sub-Saharan African territory, or Negroids, simply do not appear in the Old Testament. Some Christians often equate Moses' wife, Zipporah, to a "Black woman" to justify miscegenation, however in reality, according to scripture, Zipporah's ethnic descent is Arabian, and Caucasoid, not a Black Sub-Saharan African.
Sources
Driver, S. R. (1904). The Book of Genesis. London: Methuen.
Graves, Robert., Patai., Raphael. (2004). The Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. Carcanet Press Limited.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (1995). International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Nott, Josiah Clark, George R. Gliddon, Samuel George Morton, Louis Agassiz, William Usher, and Henry S. Patterson. (1854). Types of Mankind: Or, Ethnological Researches : Based Upon the Ancient Monuments, Paintings, Sculptures, and Crania of Races, and Upon Their Natural, Geographical, Philological and Biblical History. Illustrated by Selections from the Inedited Papers of Samuel George Morton and by Additional Contributions from L. Agassiz, W. Usher, and H.S. Patterson. Lippincott, Grambo & Company.
Ramm, Bernard. (1954). The Christian View of Science and the Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Rawlinson, George. (1878). The Origin of Nations. Scribner.
Winchell, Alexander. (1880). Preadamites. S. C. Griggs.
Wells, Edward. (1711). An Historical Geography of the Old and New Testament. Vol. 1. London.
Edit: Obviously not all Sub-Saharans are Negroid, populations are mixed. Horners have varying degrees of Hamitic (Caucasoid) admixture. However the Biblical record and ethnography itself shows the Hebrews when the Old Testament was written had no contact with any Africans below Egypt. In other words the Old Testament is strictly a Caucasoid book.