7 At that time, there shall be brought a gift to the Lord of Hosts, a people pulled and torn, and from an awesome people from its beginning and onward, a nation punished in kind and trampled, whose land the rivers have plundered, to the place of the name of the Lord of Hosts, Mount Zion.
7. In that time, Tribute shall be brought to the LORD of Hosts [From] a people far and remote, From a people thrust forth and away— A nation of gibber and chatter, Whose land is cut off by streams— At the place where the name of the LORD of Hosts abides, At Mount Zion.
King James Bible In that time shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their 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.
New King James Version In that time a present will be brought to the LORD of hosts From a people tall and smooth of skin, And from a people terrible from their beginning onward, A nation powerful and treading down, Whose land the rivers divide— To the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, To Mount Zion.
King James 2000 Bible In that time shall a present be brought unto the LORD of hosts from a people tall and smooth of skin, and from a people feared from their beginning until now; a nation powerful and treading under foot, whose land the rivers divide, to the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, to mount Zion.
New American Standard Bible At that time a gift of tribute will be brought to the LORD of armies From a people tall and smooth, From a people feared far and wide, A powerful and oppressive nation, Whose land the rivers divide— To the place of the name of the LORD of armies, to Mount Zion.
NASB 1995 At that time a gift of homage will be brought to the LORD of hosts From a people tall and smooth, Even from a people feared far and wide, A powerful and oppressive nation, Whose land the rivers divide-- To the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, even Mount Zion.
NASB 1977 At that time a gift of homage will be brought to the LORD of hosts From a people tall and smooth, Even from a people feared far and wide, A powerful and oppressive nation, Whose land the rivers divide— To the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, even Mount Zion.
English Standard Version At that time tribute will be brought to the LORD of hosts from a people tall and smooth, from a people feared near and far, a nation mighty and conquering, whose land the rivers divide, to Mount Zion, the place of the name of the LORD of hosts.
New Living Translation At that time the LORD of Heaven’s Armies will receive gifts from this land divided by rivers, from this tall, smooth-skinned people, who are feared far and wide for their conquests and destruction. They will bring the gifts to Jerusalem, where the LORD of Heaven’s Armies dwells.
Christian Standard Bible At that time a gift will be brought to the LORD of Armies from a people tall and smooth-skinned, a people feared far and near, a powerful nation with a strange language, whose land is divided by rivers—to Mount Zion, the place of the name of the LORD of Armies.
Literal Standard Version At that time a present is brought to YHWH of Hosts, "" A nation drawn out and peeled. Even of a people fearful from the beginning until now, "" A nation meting out by line, and treading down, "" Whose land floods have spoiled, "" To the place of the Name of YHWH of Hosts—Mount Zion!”
Young's Literal Translation At that time brought is a present to Jehovah of Hosts, A nation drawn out and peeled. Even of a people fearful from the beginning hitherto, A nation meting out by line, and treading down, Whose land floods have spoiled, Unto the place of the name of Jehovah of Hosts -- mount Zion!'
Smith's Literal Translation In that time shall a gift be brought to Jehovah of armies of a people drawn out, and sharpened, and from a people to be feared from this, and farther off; a nation of might, of might, and of treading down, of which the rivers divided up its lands, to the place of the name of Jehovah of armies, mount Zion.
Catholic Public Domain Version In that time, a gift will be carried to the Lord of hosts, from a people divided and torn apart, from a terrible people, after whom there has been no other, from an apprehensive nation, apprehensive and downtrodden, whose land the rivers have ruined, and it will be carried to the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, to mount Zion.
Geneva Bible of 1587 At that time shall a present be brought vnto the Lord of hostes, (a people that is scattered abroade, and spoyled, & of a terrible people from their beginning hitherto, a nation, by litle and litle euen troden vnder foote, whose land the riuers haue spoyled) to the place of the Name of the Lord of hostes, euen the mount Zion.
Bishops' Bible of 1568 In that tyme shall there a present be brought vnto the Lord of hoastes, euen a people that is scattered abrode and robbed of that they had, that same people which haue ben fearfull from their begynnyng hytherto, a nation troden downe by litle and litle, whose lande the fluddes haue spoyled, to the place of the name of the Lorde of hoastes, euen to the mount Sion.
Coverdale Bible of 1535 Then shal there be a present brought vnto the LORDE of hoostes: euen that harde folke, that fearful folke, and that further is the this: yt desperate and pylled folke (whose londe is deuyded from vs with floudes of water) vnto the place of the name of the LORDE of hoostes: euen vnto the hill of Sion.
___________________________
I don't know how this "tall and smooth" thing came about Also noticing in the top two Hebrew Bible translations
Chabad says "a nation punished in kind and trampled"
Sefaria says "A nation of gibber and chatter"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
A People Tall and Smooth Skinned BRILL, 2006 by Marta Høyland Lavik, Dr. theol. (2004), University of Oslo, is Associate Professor in Old Testament Studies at School of Mission and Theology, Stavanger.
quote: This volume sheds new light on an old and somehow puzzling text, Isaiah 18. Even though the majority of scholars over the years has regarded this chapter difficult to fully understand, the author of this volume demonstrates how Isa 18 can be seen as a coherent whole by showing itself to be an example of Hebrew rhetoric.
ARE THE KUSHITES DISPARAGED IN ISAIAH 18? KUSH APPLIED AS A LITERARY MOTIF IN THE HEBREW BIBLE MARTA HØYLAND LAVIK
I agree with Aubin who states that the Hebrew Bible “depicts them [the Kushites] in exceptionally generous terms,”111 but it is my contention that the Kushites are depicted this way not first and foremost to mirror their literal greatness in ancient times, but to teach the people of YHWH a lesson. Taking Isaiah 18 as an example, the over-all function of applying the motif Kush (with the associations this word presumably activated in the ancient audience) is to ridicule the Judahites who seek human protection instead of in the ultimate power, YHWH. In addition, by placing Kush at Zion (v. 7), the Judahites become aware that there is a special relationship between both Judah and YHWH, and Kush and YHWH
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The oldest version I can find describing Cush as "tall and Smooth" is the ERV of 1881 but I see it also may go back to a 1763 version the 1885 one may be a revision of it
___________________________________
The Revised Version (RV) or English Revised Version (ERV) of the Bible is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version. It was the first and remains the only officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Version in Great Britain. The work was entrusted to over 50 scholars from various denominations in Great Britain. American scholars were invited to co-operate, by correspondence.[1] Its New Testament was published in 1881, its Old Testament in 1885, and its Apocrypha in 1894.[1] The best known of the translation committee members were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort; their fiercest critics of that period were John William Burgon and George Saintsbury.
____________________________
ESV (1885)
Isaiah 18:7
7In that time shall a present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people tall and smooth, and from a people terrible from their beginning onward; a nation that meteth out and treadeth down, whose land the rivers divide, to the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, the mount Zion.
......
^ this version is the same as another title but is also 1885 so it may be the same:
The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments Translated Out of the Original Tongues Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611 Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised, Printed for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge · Volume 2 1885
King James Bible (1611, but the main edition used today is the 1769 version) In that time shall the present be brought unto the LORD of hosts of a people scattered and peeled, and from a people terrible from their 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.
New King James Version (OT published 1982) In that time a present will be brought to the LORD of hosts From a people tall and smooth of skin, And from a people terrible from their beginning onward, A nation powerful and treading down, Whose land the rivers divide— To the place of the name of the LORD of hosts, To Mount Zion.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacob's Deception …10 Then take it to your father to eat, so that he may bless you before he dies.” 11 Jacob answered his mother Rebekah, “Look, my brother Esau is a hairy man, but I am smooth-skinned.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:7. In that time, Tribute shall be brought to the LORD of Hosts [From] a people far and remote, From a people thrust forth and away— A nation of gibber and chatter, Whose land is cut off by streams— At the place where the name of the LORD of Hosts abides, At Mount Zion.
Mt. Zion is in Africa?
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
The English translation for the Isaiah passage of "smooth" for the Kushites' skin is not that accurate in my opinion. Tukuler knows Hebrew the best and in a couple of other threads he explains that a better translation is glabrous which means hairless and not the general term of 'smooth'. The Kushites (and Egyptians in extra-Biblical texts) were described as glabrous i.e. having little body hair in contrast to other populations i.e. stereotypical lighter skinned Middle Eastern types that are hairy. Thus Kushites are described as tall and hairless.
And again, I recommend the Biblical scholar David M. Goldenberg's book The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In the Chapter on Cush, he makes a compelling case that Cush not only meant Nubian Cush but also land parallel to that across the Red Sea, hence an 'Arabian Cush'.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: [QB] ^ Where's Tukuler when we need him?
The English translation for the Isaiah passage of "smooth" for the Kushites' skin is not that accurate in my opinion. Tukuler knows Hebrew the best and in a couple of other threads he explains that a better translation is glabrous which means hairless and not the general term of 'smooth'. The Kushites (and Egyptians in extra-Biblical texts) were described as glabrous i.e. having little body hair in contrast to other populations i.e. stereotypical lighter skinned Middle Eastern types that are hairy. Thus Kushites are described as tall and hairless.
I'm trying to figure out why at the top of the OP two Hebrew translations say nothing about tallness or skin, or smoothness or even synonymous words to them And the King James (not the new 1982 version) does not mention these things either and neither do several other versions including the 16th century ones, nor do the literal versions (the lower half of the list without the bolded internally)
No one has ever heard of the word glabrous, that's why he prefers it although it does have a nice sound to it almost rhyming with fabulous
Synonymously, hairless
King James has "a people scattered and peeled" but the King James Revised and the NASB ( considered most accurate) both have "tall and smooth". "Peeled is vague" but in the original KJV there is no way "scattered" could come out of "tall"
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Where's Tukuler when we need him?
The English translation for the Isaiah passage of "smooth" for the Kushites' skin is not that accurate in my opinion. Tukuler knows Hebrew the best and in a couple of other threads he explains that a better translation is glabrous which means hairless and not the general term of 'smooth'. The Kushites (and Egyptians in extra-Biblical texts) were described as glabrous i.e. having little body hair in contrast to other populations i.e. stereotypical lighter skinned Middle Eastern types that are hairy. Thus Kushites are described as tall and hairless.
And again, I recommend the Biblical scholar David M. Goldenberg's book The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In the Chapter on Cush, he makes a compelling case that Cush not only meant Nubian Cush but also land parallel to that across the Red Sea, hence an 'Arabian Cush'.
smooth means hairless... Yes there is an Arabian Cush but this verse is about Cush proper, beyond the rivers of the Upper Nile
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
29. R. D. Haak, “‘Cush’ in Zephaniah,” in Holloway and Handy, The Pitcher Is Broken, pp. 238-51, esp. 249-50. Similarly Yeivin (“Topographic and Ethnic Notes II”), who thinks that the Kushites mentioned as being in the service of the kings of Judah (2 Sam 18:21ff., Jer 38:7) are descended from Ethiopian tribes that had settled in the Negev and assimilated among the Jews.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
NASB 1995 2 Sam 18:21 Then Joab said to the Cushite, “Go, tell the king what you have seen.” So the Cushite bowed to Joab and ran.
NASB 1995 Jeremiah 38:7 But Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a eunuch, while he was in the king's palace, heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern. Now the king was sitting in the Gate of Benjamin;
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Where's Tukuler when we need him?
The English translation for the Isaiah passage of "smooth" for the Kushites' skin is not that accurate in my opinion. Tukuler knows Hebrew the best and in a couple of other threads he explains that a better translation is glabrous which means hairless and not the general term of 'smooth'. The Kushites (and Egyptians in extra-Biblical texts) were described as glabrous i.e. having little body hair in contrast to other populations i.e. stereotypical lighter skinned Middle Eastern types that are hairy. Thus Kushites are described as tall and hairless.
And again, I recommend the Biblical scholar David M. Goldenberg's book The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In the Chapter on Cush, he makes a compelling case that Cush not only meant Nubian Cush but also land parallel to that across the Red Sea, hence an 'Arabian Cush'.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point. Different sides of the Red Sea, depending on location do not necessarily mean different ethnic stock. And most of the references in the Bible when referring to "Kush" or "Cush" refer to the areas south of Egypt not Arabia.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe there actually is a connection between Kush and Arabia that goes beyond overlapping skin tones? It would require archaeological excavation, but maybe the people of the Hejaz in Arabia had contacts with northern Sudanese cultures across the Red Sea? Surely there must have been trade between the regions at least.
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: ^ Where's Tukuler when we need him?
The English translation for the Isaiah passage of "smooth" for the Kushites' skin is not that accurate in my opinion. Tukuler knows Hebrew the best and in a couple of other threads he explains that a better translation is glabrous which means hairless and not the general term of 'smooth'. The Kushites (and Egyptians in extra-Biblical texts) were described as glabrous i.e. having little body hair in contrast to other populations i.e. stereotypical lighter skinned Middle Eastern types that are hairy. Thus Kushites are described as tall and hairless.
And again, I recommend the Biblical scholar David M. Goldenberg's book The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In the Chapter on Cush, he makes a compelling case that Cush not only meant Nubian Cush but also land parallel to that across the Red Sea, hence an 'Arabian Cush'.
If I remember Tukuler objected to a Filipino guy daring to offer commentary on certain supposedly "reserved" topics- a completely lubricous stance, particularly given your many years and great contributions. But that's neither here or there. You are correct as to hairlessness, and this is confirmed by the AE aversion to hairy appearance- hence their careful shaving, and use of wigs, which sometimes included imports of "Caucasian" hair.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BrandonP: Maybe there actually is a connection between Kush and Arabia that goes beyond overlapping skin tones? It would require archaeological excavation, but maybe the people of the Hejaz in Arabia had contacts with northern Sudanese cultures across the Red Sea? Surely there must have been trade between the regions at least.
Correct. Hebraic tradition makes it clear that the firstborn son of Ham- Kush, had sons who resided on both sides of the Red Sea. Thus Kushites were the original inhabitants of Arabia until Semites later took over and displaced or assimilated them.
Another interesting thing that Goldenberg pointed out in his book is that later Greek geographers also did not view the Red Sea to be an ethnic divider either. This is why 'Arabia' included the Eastern Desert of Africa.
Then there is Herodotus's Chronicles of the Persian Wars, where he cites that Xerxe's Aethiopian contingent and Arabian contingent which were grouped together wore similar attire and spoke mutually intelligble languages!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good links and refs. I'll have to also look at Herodotus' Persian Wars. Given evidence from visual anthro as to the peoples' appearance as well as the evidence from the clothing you mention , these people had to be much more than rhetorical figures. We know that the Israelites and the Kushites were cutting some kind of deal or alliance against Persia.
Maybe the prophet was giving warning that even such an alliance would not fare well against the huge might of Xerses Persian steamroller?
Does Goldenberg give any info on Kushite warriors etc,, weapons, swiftness? etc?
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ To my recollection Goldenberg did cite that the Kushites of Africa were reputable warriors who were considered a threat to Egypt's security and at times utilized by the Egyptians as mercenaries, and of course the rescue of Jerusalem by Egyptian and Kushite troops during the 25th dynasty.
quote:Originally posted by zarahan aka Enrique Cardova: If I remember Tukuler objected to a Filipino guy daring to offer commentary on certain supposedly "reserved" topics- a completely lubricous stance, particularly given your many years and great contributions. But that's neither here or there. You are correct as to hairlessness, and this is confirmed by the AE aversion to hairy appearance- hence their careful shaving, and use of wigs, which sometimes included imports of "Caucasian" hair.
LOL No need to be coy. Yes that Filipino guy is me. despite my years of study and knowledge I am no expert so I don't want to sound presumptuous. This is why I defer to Tukuler. That said, I don't think any academic topic should be off-limits especially if Tukuler who is more knowledgeable is present. The same is true with African population history whether biological or cultural, despite whether those studying such topics are not of African descent.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Page 221
29. R. D. Haak, “‘Cush’ in Zephaniah,” in Holloway and Handy, The Pitcher Is Broken, pp. 238-51, esp. 249-50. Similarly Yeivin (“Topographic and Ethnic Notes II”), who thinks that the Kushites mentioned as being in the service of the kings of Judah (2 Sam 18:21ff., Jer 38:7) are descended from Ethiopian tribes that had settled in the Negev and assimilated among the Jews.
Actually that is inaccurate. One passage I remember from Goldenberg's book concerns the native inhabitants of the Negev who were known as the 'Kushim' to the Israelites and the 'Kushu' in Middle Kingdom Egyptian texts. That they descend from Ethiopian tribes or soldiers who settled the area is simply a hypothesis that has never been proven. On the contrary, both Biblical and Egyptian texts give no indication that these people had any direct ties to Africa let alone Nubia. If anything, one could make a stronger argument that they have direct ties to the Arabian Cushites if their bedouin culture is clue. In fact there are some scholars who make this link like Biblical scholar Alice Linsley in her Just Genesis blog, who thinks that the Negev settlement of Beersheba (Well of Sheba) where Abraham's wife Keturah lived was named after Sheba son of Kush and that Keturah herself was the granddaughter of Sheba. This would make the Cushim of the Negev a northern branch of Arabian Cush and Beersheba their outpost.
By the way, there's also a theory that the Shulamites to whom the Shulamite Bride of Song of Songs belongs to was a tribe of the Cushim.
Where's Dana when you need her?
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
John of Ephesus (or of Asia) ( c. 507 – c. 588) was a leader of the early Syriac Orthodox Church in the sixth century and one of the earliest and the most important historians to write in Syriac. John of Ephesus was a bishop, but John was more important than other bishops and what sets him apart from most others is the fact that he was a historian and a writer.
_________________________________
John of Ephesus wrote: “It began first among the peoples of the interior of the countries of the southeast, of India, that is, of Kush, the Himyarites, and others,” but clearly he confused India, Kush (in what is now Sudan)
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Page 221
29. R. D. Haak, “‘Cush’ in Zephaniah,” in Holloway and Handy, The Pitcher Is Broken, pp. 238-51, esp. 249-50. Similarly Yeivin (“Topographic and Ethnic Notes II”), who thinks that the Kushites mentioned as being in the service of the kings of Judah (2 Sam 18:21ff., Jer 38:7) are descended from Ethiopian tribes that had settled in the Negev and assimilated among the Jews.
Actually that is inaccurate. One passage I remember from Goldenberg's book concerns the native inhabitants of the Negev who were known as the 'Kushim' to the Israelites and the 'Kushu' in Middle Kingdom Egyptian texts. That they descend from Ethiopian tribes or soldiers who settled the area is simply a hypothesis that has never been proven. On the contrary, both Biblical and Egyptian texts give no indication that these people had any direct ties to Africa let alone Nubia. If anything, one could make a stronger argument that they have direct ties to the Arabian Cushites if their bedouin culture is clue. In fact there are some scholars who make this link like Biblical scholar Alice Linsley in her Just Genesis blog, who thinks that the Negev settlement of Beersheba (Well of Sheba) where Abraham's wife Keturah lived was named after the Sheba son of Kush and that Keturah herself was the granddaughter of Sheba. This would make the Cushim of the Negev a northern branch of Arabian Cush and Beersheba their outpost.
By the way, there's also a theory that the Shulamites to whom the Shulamite Bride of Song of Songs belongs to was a tribe of the Cushim.
Where's Dana when you need her?
That is a note from the Book The Curse of Ham
Dana has moved on from Egypt search and good for her, but she does the best job in tracing Cushim and all their tribes.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
quote:Arabia was originally settled by two distinct races, an earlier Cushite Ethiopian race, and a later Semitic Arabian. ‘The Cushites were the original Arabians and dwelt there before Abraham came to Canaan. Ancient literature assigns their first settlement to the extreme southwestern point of the peninsula. From thence they spread northward and eastward over Yemen, Hadramaut, and Oman. A proof that they were Hamites lay in the name Himyar or dusky, given to the ruling race. The Himyaritic language, now lost, but some of which is preserved are African in origin and character. Its grammar is identical with the Abyssinian. The Encyclopedia Britannica in its article on Arabia says, “The institutions of Yemen bear a close resemblance to African types. The inhabitants of Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman and the adjoining districts, in shape of the head, color, length, and slenderness of limbs and scantiness of hair, point to an African origin.” The first inhabitants of Arabia were known to the national traditions as Adites. The Scriptures called Ad a descendant of Ham.
Clyde tried to tell y'all that the Hyksos are the Heka Chus ...
quote:Lenormant in his painstaking researches found that Cushites were the first inhabitants of Arabia and were known in the national traditions as Adites. These descended from Ad, a grandson of Ham. His sons were Shedid and Shedad. To them was attributed the Shepherd invasion of Egypt . It was recorded in the traditions that one of them built a palace of superb columns surrounded by a magnificent garden. He tried to imitate the celestial paradise and God took him away. The Adites, were depicted as men of gigantic stature. Fanciful tales like the Arabian Nights exist in Arabian legends, springing from the same source as those of the Egyptian manuscripts. Lenormant says, "We may perceive in all this the remembrance of a powerful empire founded by Cushites in very early ages
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
NASB 1995 2 Sam 18:21 Then Joab said to the Cushite, “Go, tell the king what you have seen.” So the Cushite bowed to Joab and ran.
NASB 1995 Jeremiah 38:7 But Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a eunuch, while he was in the king's palace, heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern. Now the king was sitting in the Gate of Benjamin;
I see what your racist self did there
quote:Parts of the Bible were carefully selected to prove that God had intended that the Negro should be servant of the white man and that he would always be a "hewer of wood and a drawer of water.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
NASB 1995 2 Sam 18:21 Then Joab said to the Cushite, “Go, tell the king what you have seen.” So the Cushite bowed to Joab and ran.
NASB 1995 Jeremiah 38:7 But Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a eunuch, while he was in the king's palace, heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern. Now the king was sitting in the Gate of Benjamin;
I see what your racist self did there
quote:Parts of the Bible were carefully selected to prove that God had intended that the Negro should be servant of the white man and that he would always be a "hewer of wood and a drawer of water.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Page 221
29. R. D. Haak, “‘Cush’ in Zephaniah,” in Holloway and Handy, The Pitcher Is Broken, pp. 238-51, esp. 249-50. Similarly Yeivin (“Topographic and Ethnic Notes II”), who thinks that the Kushites mentioned as being in the service of the kings of Judah (2 Sam 18:21ff., Jer 38:7) are descended from Ethiopian tribes that had settled in the Negev and assimilated among the Jews.
As soon as I saw there were bible quotes referenced in your post I posted them for context, regardless of what turned up. If you have issues with it take it up with Samuel and Jeramiah. People that leave out stuff are trying to sculpt a narrative
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^ exactly! You would know! That is what you do all the time. Once again that is a note from the book The Curse of Ham. I was not sculpting anything with it.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
what I often do is when I see what looks like cherry picked ("sculpted") information, I'll put up more information about it. Never complain about people posting further information, it doesn't matter what you think the motive is, it's fact we have to deal with. It's when things are left out, that's a problem. A lot of times in the middle of a debate I will take a break to do more research on some particular point and sometimes I get surprised when what I find goes against my own argument. I post it anyway because facts are facts. "Let the chips fall where they may" So when I saw that there were bible quotes referenced, because this thread is focused on bible quotes and varying translations I was going to post them whatever they were. This is a thread about bible quotation pertaining to Cushites / Ethiopians. So any bible quote posted on that is to this relevant because that is the subject matter, regardless of what a bible quote itself might portray as fact or feelings inducement.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: what I often do is when I see what looks like cherry picked ("sculpted") information, I'll put up more information about it. Never complain about people posting further information, it doesn't matter what you think the motive is, it's fact we have to deal with. It's when things are left out, that's a problem. A lot of times in the middle of a debate I will take a break to do more research on some particular point and sometimes I get surprised when what I find goes against my own argument. I post it anyway because facts are facts. "Let the chips fall where they may" So when I saw that there were bible quotes referenced, because this thread is focused on bible quotes and varying translations I was going to post them whatever they were. This is a thread about bible quotation pertaining to Cushites / Ethiopians. So any bible quote posted on that is to this relevant because that is the subject matter, regardless of what a bible quote itself might portray as fact or feelings inducement.
To play Devil’s advocate here, are you certain the translation for the scripture you cited is the same from the source in the book? Given that the premise of the book [that her citation came from] is partially “mistranslations of biblical text”, it seems like it could be important to make sure your source is the same source as the one being cited. Might not actually change anything (not like there’s any reason to believe the NASB is inaccurate) but it could. At the very least it would assure cohesion.
Might be moderately time consuming to sus out, so it’s understandable if you didn’t. I’m reading the preview right now, but i don’t yet own the book; i did some quick research but didn’t really come up with anything.
@ BrandonP
quote: Maybe there actually is a connection between Kush and Arabia that goes beyond overlapping skin tones? It would require archaeological excavation, but maybe the people of the Hejaz in Arabia had contacts with northern Sudanese cultures across the Red Sea? Surely there must have been trade between the regions at least.
{I realized after writing my reply that you specified Northern Sudanese aka “Nubian”, which is probably an important distinction. Though i assume the term Kushite originated with the Nubian Kushite civilization, i’d also assume Kushite/Cushite in the context of this discussion more accurately refers to people in the Horn; given the proximity/history it might even be a moot point. I’m just a layman who is in no way yet knowledgeable enough to speak on this topic with any authority/certainty. Either way, strictly speaking i didn’t answer the question you asked, but i’ll post the reply regardless.}
I mean, given what’s documented about the region, this is kind of a given, no? I have an admittedly rudimentary knowledge here, but there seems to be a fair bit of evidence of relatedness and/interactions between peoples on either side of the Red Sea. Outside of Hebrew literary tradition that was previously noted, Ethiopic religious literary tradition (from what little i’ve read about) seems to reference/indicate connections, even in pre-Abrahamic religions. Linguistic analysis groups certain languages in the Horn and the Arabian Peninsula together, i.e. South Semitic. I’m also assuming there’s evidence of admixture and biological affinities as well, but I haven’t done any research into that at present. Regardless I think it’s more than just skin tone that connects African and Arabian Kushites.
-------------------- "One dog ain't enough, and two is too low" - Three Dog
quote:That is a note from the Book The Curse of Ham
Dana has moved on from Egypt search and good for her, but she does the best job in tracing Cushim and all their tribes.
She released a book in 2020, called The African and Arabian Origins of the Hebrew Bible: An Ethnohistorical Study. Have you read it? I havent yet (that mf expensive ) but i plan on it soon.
-------------------- "One dog ain't enough, and two is too low" - Three Dog
quote:That is a note from the Book The Curse of Ham
Dana has moved on from Egypt search and good for her, but she does the best job in tracing Cushim and all their tribes.
She released a book in 2020, called The African and Arabian Origins of the Hebrew Bible: An Ethnohistorical Study. Have you read it? I havent yet (that mf expensive ) but i plan on it soon.
that was is actually her 2020 dissertation turned into a book ($250)
quote: these peoples of the Muslim folklore like the Torah/Bible are actually historically-documented Arab tribes corresponding to early populations from the Yemen, Hijaz Assir, and Central Arabia, and some that are still around...
we have seen that Kamal Salibi's book,The Bible Came from Arabia gives excellent examples of how certain phrases related to geography have been distorted, misinterpreted or ignored in order to validate established ideas of biblical archaeology. This has included the misconstruing of localities and placement of names like that of the promised land of Moses (mentioned in Number 34:1-12). Names meant to designate regions in places like Hijaz, Asir and Wadi Dawasir in the Yaman, have been misappropriated and applied to places in modern Levant towns – some of which could hardly have been occupied until centuries later than the period referred to in the Torah/Bible.
As we have just seen, the people who in Arab tradition and histories living in Hadramaut and the Yaman that were called “Adites” or “A'ad” and Thamud, their remnant, are the same as the peoples known in the bible as children of Shem -Lud, Eber, Hul, Meshech or Mash, Almodad, Shelah and the “Aramaeans”, otherwise known in literature, insciption and historical documents as Al-Awidh, Wabar, Mesheyik, AlMirithad, and Salih. These were originally the names of tribes of southern and central Arabian origin still known as el-Wuda'in, Wabar or Wabari'in, Huwayl, Meshaykh, and Salih of the Qudah (or Sawalihi'in plural), and "Iram" or "Aram" is the original home of these peoples also known futher northward as the Nabataeans.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Dana says much of the Bible actually takes place in the Arabian Peninsula
quote: these peoples of the Muslim folklore like the Torah/Bible are actually historically-documented Arab tribes corresponding to early populations from the Yemen, Hijaz Assir, and Central Arabia, and some that are still around...
we have seen that Kamal Salibi's book, the The Bible Came from Arabia gives excellent examples of how certain phrases related to geography have been distorted, misinterpreted or ignored in order to validate established ideas of biblical archaeology. This has included the misconstruing of localities and placement of names like that of the promised land of Moses (mentioned in Number 34:1-12). Names meant to designate regions in places like Hijaz, Asir and Wadi Dawasir in the Yaman, have been misappropriated and applied to places in modern Levant towns – some of which could hardly have been occupied until centuries later than the period referred to in the Torah/Bible.
As we have just seen, the people who in Arab tradition and histories living in Hadramaut and the Yaman that were called “Adites” or “A'ad” and Thamud, their remnant, are the same as the peoples known in the bible as children of Shem -Lud, Eber, Hul, Meshech or Mash, Almodad, Shelah and the “Aramaeans”, otherwise known in literature, insciption and historical documents as Al-Awidh, Wabar, Mesheyik, AlMirithad, and Salih. These were originally the names of tribes of southern and central Arabian origin still known as el-Wuda'in, Wabar or Wabari'in, Huwayl, Meshaykh, and Salih of the Qudah (or Sawalihi'in plural), and "Iram" or "Aram" is the original home of these peoples also known futher northward as the Nabataeans.
Arabian Judah theory Kamal Salibi wrote three books advocating the controversial "Israel in Arabia" theory. In this view, the place names of the Hebrew Bible actually allude to places in southwest Arabia. As the Arabian Hebrews migrated and many resettled in Palestine where they established the Hasmonean kingdom under Simon Maccabaeus in the second century B.C.. According to the theory, the place names in the Bible were gradually reinterpreted to refer to places in this new region. In this new Israel, the Jewish peoples switched from Hebrew to Aramaic. It was this switch in language that created the confusions which led to the distortion of the immigrants' stories.[15] He also argued that 'Lebanon' itself in high antiquity was a place in the Southern Arabian peninsula.[15]
His theory has been both attacked and supported for its supposed implications for modern political affairs, although Salibi himself made no such connection. Tudor Parfitt wrote "It is dangerous because Salibi's ideas have all sorts of implications, not least in terms of the legitimacy of the State of Israel".[16]
The (literally) central identification of the theory is that the geographical feature referred to as הירדן, the "Jordan", which is usually taken to refer to the Jordan River, although never actually described as a "river" in the Hebrew text, actually means the great West Arabian Escarpment, known as the Sarawat Mountains. The area of ancient Israel is then identified with the land on either side of the southern section of the escarpment that is the southern Hejaz and 'Asir, from Ta’if down to the border with Yemen.
Salibi argued that early epigraphic evidence used to vindicate the Biblical stories has been misread. Mesha, the Moabite ruler who celebrated a victory over the kingdom of Israel in a stone inscription, the Mesha stele found in 1868, was, according to Salibi, an Arabian, and Moab was a village 'south (yemen) of Rabin' near Mecca. The words translated 'many days' actually meant 'south of Rabin'.[15] He shared the view of such scholars as Thomas L. Thompson that there is a severe mismatch between the Biblical narrative and the archaeological findings in Palestine. Thompson's explanation was to discount the Bible as literal history but Salibi's was to locate the centre of Jewish culture further south.[17]
The location of the Promised Land is discussed in chapter 15 of "The Bible Came from Arabia". Salibi argued that the description in the Bible is of an extensive tract of land, substantially larger than Palestine which includes a very varied landscape, ranging from well-watered mountain-tops via fertile valleys and foothills to lowland deserts. In the southern part of Arabia there are recently-active volcanoes, near to which are, presumably, the buried remains of Sodom and Gomorrah.[18]
The theory is considered to be a fringe theory. According to Itamar Rabinowitz, the theory allegedly embarrassed many of his colleagues. Rabinowitz discounts antisemitism as the impetus for the book because Salibi "was not a sworn enemy of Israel or Zionism." He speculates, however, that it might've been "an intellectual exercise" for Salibi, whom he considers a "top historian."[12] Several academic reviewers criticised Cape for having accepted "The Bible Came from Arabia" for publication.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Page 221
29. R. D. Haak, “‘Cush’ in Zephaniah,” in Holloway and Handy, The Pitcher Is Broken, pp. 238-51, esp. 249-50. Similarly Yeivin (“Topographic and Ethnic Notes II”), who thinks that the Kushites mentioned as being in the service of the kings of Judah (2 Sam 18:21ff., Jer 38:7) are descended from Ethiopian tribes that had settled in the Negev and assimilated among the Jews.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: ^^
NASB 1995 2 Sam 18:21 Then Joab said to the Cushite, “Go, tell the king what you have seen.” So the Cushite bowed to Joab and ran.
NASB 1995 Jeremiah 38:7 But Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a eunuch, while he was in the king's palace, heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern. Now the king was sitting in the Gate of Benjamin;
quote:Originally posted by Breadlum: o play Devil’s advocate here, are you certain the translation for the scripture you cited is the same from the source in the book? Given that the premise of the book [that her citation came from] is partially “mistranslations of biblical text”, it seems like it could be important to make sure your source is the same source as the one being cited. Might not actually change anything (not like there’s any reason to believe the NASB is inaccurate) but it could. At the very least it would assure cohesion.
It depends on what translation you go by
or Goldenberg goes by or Yeivin (“Topographic and Ethnic Notes II”)
or look at parallel translations, many, and see if there is significant variation
_______________________
King James Bible Jeremiah 38:7 Now when Ebedmelech the Ethiopian, one of the eunuchs which was in the king's house, heard that they had put Jeremiah in the dungeon; the king then sitting in the gate of Benjamin;
____________________
Bible History Today
Ebedmelech—A Remarkable Figure in Jerusalem’s Final Days Servant of the king
Ebedmelech, a Judahite official whom the Bible identifies as a Cushite,1 makes a brief but command appearance in the Book of Jeremiah during the horrifying Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, c. 588–586 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 38:7–13). Showing honor in chaos, his level-headed actions save Jeremiah’s life. In the life-and-death drama of Jerusalem’s fall, Ebedmelech interacts not only with Jeremiah but also with the city’s nobles and Zedekiah, the last king of Judah (c. 597–586 B.C.E.).
Jeremiah’s unpopular prophetic words provide the drama’s conflict. He delivers what seems a paradoxical—even treasonous!—message to Jerusalem’s inhabitants: Surrender to the Babylonians and live or face death by sword, famine, and pestilence (Jeremiah 38:2–3, 17–18). He delivers versions of it consistently. He prophesies Jerusalem’s fall, but the way it falls is the people’s choice (Clements 1988, 222). Ultimately, the king, nobles, and city dwellers choose not to surrender. The breaching of Jerusalem’s walls, slaughter, and the burning of the king’s house and the people’s houses follow (Jeremiah 39:8).
Ebedmelech
Other than identifying him as a Cushite, the text remains silent about Ebedmelch’s background. How did he come to Jerusalem? Was he a mercenary, advisor, servant, or perhaps a proselyte, a believer in Israel’s God, as his name, “servant of the king,” suggests? This silence follows the biblical practice of giving only enough information to advance a book’s themes. Ebedmelech’s words and actions show his character; they advance the dominant themes of God’s upcoming judgement on Judah and the nations, and the need for repentance. The Bible indicates Ebedmelech is some sort of court official of King Zedekiah, one enjoying access to power and well known throughout the city.2 He has the king’s ear, eye, and trust.
Ebedmelech’s Moments
When Ebedmelech hears that the nobles have put Jeremiah in a cistern (Jeremiah 38:7), he approaches Zedekiah in public at the Benjamin Gate, perhaps during a routine king-subjects meeting. Ebedmelech declares the nobles have “acted wickedly” against the prophet! The Hebrew word ra’ that he uses denotes moral failure, harm, spoilage, and evil. His denunciation shows courage. By honoring and standing up for the prophet, he puts his life on the line. Ebedmelech predicts that “the prophet Jeremiah” will die there from hunger “for there is no bread left in the city” (Jeremiah 38:7–9) (italics added).
Ebedmelech’s declaration carries this silent question, “Do you want the death of this prophet attributed to your reign?” The king understands. He commands Ebedmelech to take men and get Jeremiah out of the cistern. Translations vary between three and thirty men.
Ebedmelech obeys but pauses at the house of the king. He goes to a room containing rags and worn-out clothes. Arriving at the cistern, he lowers the cloths by ropes and instructs Jeremiah to put them under his armpits. The cloths buffer the prophet’s body. This action shows Ebedmelech’s forethought and compassion. No doubt the three men and Ebedmelech separate, each side pulling in unison. Jeremiah surfaces. The text says Jeremiah “remained in the court of the guard” (Jeremiah 38:11–13).
Seeking a different word from the Lord, Zedekiah soon calls Jeremiah for a private meeting. Jeremiah wisely first bargains for assurance of his life; Zedekiah gives it. The prophetic word comes, updating earlier words and then elaborating on the upcoming ridicule of women against Zedekiah and the future of his children and wives (Jeremiah 38:14–23). Despite Jeremiah’s pleadings, Zedekiah refuses to surrender to the Babylonians. His reason? He fears abuse from the Judeans who have gone over to the Babylonians (v. 19).
Soon the city falls. Few details emerge, perhaps because the original readers knew firsthand the horror of slaughter, pillage, rape, and slavery. The 18-month siege ends with the city’s almost complete destruction (Jeremiah 39:1–3, 8). King Nebuchadrezzar commands his captain of the guard, Nebuzaradan, to look after Jeremiah and to do him no harm (Jeremiah 39:11–12).
The Book of Jeremiah mentions Ebedmelech once more (Jeremiah 39:15–18). In what must have come unexpectedly, he receives a prophetic word of comfort, one similar to that given to Baruch, Jeremiah’s scribe (Jeremiah 45). Speaking in the name of “the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel,” Jeremiah assures Ebedmelech that he “shall not be handed over” to those whom he fears. Neither will he “fall by the sword.” God twice assures Ebedmelech that “I will save you.” The prophetic word also commends him. The Lord says through the prophet Jeremiah that Ebedmelech shall have his life “as a prize of war, because you have trusted in me” (v. 18).
Ebedmelech’s cameo appearance in the Book of Jeremiah truly reveals a man more courageous, more honorable, and more kingly than the king.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Djehuti: That said, I don't think any academic topic should be off-limits especially if Tukuler who is more knowledgeable is present. The same is true with African population history whether biological or cultural, despite whether those studying such topics are not of African descent.
Reminds me of a Filipino woman I once talked to in some forum online. She was very interested in, and read everything about, the Scandinavian Viking age. Many asked her why she was interested in an ancient culture located on the other side of the world. But it is really not that strange since there are many western scholars that are interested in South East Asia and other parts of the world which are located far from their home countries. But if it is the other way many gets surprised.
Just as a side note
-------------------- Once an archaeologist, always an archaeologist Posts: 2684 | From: Sweden | Registered: Mar 2020
| IP: Logged |
posted
What i don't get is why they translate it as “Cushite” in one verse but “Ethiopian” in another verse. Assuming that the part you posted about the identification of Ebed-melech only being that of a “Cushite” is correct, why not just translate it the same way. Maybe the idea is that because he was eunich then he must have been specifically “Ethiopian”, but i still wouldn’t see a reason to translate it differently. Though obviously there were probably different translators, assuming the word being translated is just “Kushi/Cushi” or some variation of it, why not just translate it as “Cushite” and let the context (or lack thereof) fill in the blanks.
I don’t read Hebrew though so perhaps there are some subtleties I don’t understand. A brief internet search brought up this : hak·kū·šî, and there does seem to be some subtle differences in how it’s written in different passages.
But curiously we have this:
2 Samuel 18:32 HEB: לְאַבְשָׁל֑וֹם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַכּוּשִׁ֗י יִהְי֤וּ כַנַּ֙עַר֙ NAS: Absalom? And the Cushite answered, KJV: safe? And Cushi answered, INT: Absalom answered to the Cushite become man
2 Chronicles 14:9 HEB: אֲלֵיהֶ֜ם זֶ֣רַח הַכּוּשִׁ֗י בְּחַ֙יִל֙ אֶ֣לֶף NAS: Now Zerah the Ethiopian came KJV: against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host INT: against Zerah the Ethiopian an host of a thousand
Where the word “הַכּוּשִׁ֗י“ seems be written exactly the same in both texts, yet there are two translations.
Now a brief Wiki search produced this: The invasion, and its implied time-frame, means that the traditional view was to consider this Zerah to have actually been Usarkon II or Usarkon I,[3] both being rulers of Egypt. {The etymology being U-Serak-on}
So it seems that the basis could be in this case that Zerah was/is known to have an African origin, but that doesn’t really explain what happened with Ebel-melech.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable can clue me in.
-------------------- "One dog ain't enough, and two is too low" - Three Dog
posted
^^^ Not sure but isn't that interesting, a Cushi that is neither slave nor servant... possibly being the same as a Pharaoh who was Lybian, Meswesh, and could be described as black...
That should violate Lioness's senses on two counts
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
The twenty-four books of the Holy Scriptures, carefully translated according to the Massoretic text, on the basis of the English version, after the best Jewish authorities and supplied with short explanatory notes by Isaac Leeser by Leeser, Isaac
(note numbers and roman numerals, and copy and paste works highlighting directly from book page or text at left)
2 Samuel 18:32 =
2 Samuel XVIII
then go to 21 and 32 (as a numbers)
21 Then said Joab to the Cushi,^ Go tell the king what thou hast seen. And Cushi bowed himself unto Joiib, and ran.
32 And the king said unto the Cushi, Is the young man Abshalom safe? And the Cushi answered. May like the young man be the enemies of my lord the king, and all that have risen up against thee for evil.
7 Now when 'Ebed-melech the Cushi,'' a eunuch who was in the king's hou.se, heard that they had placed Jeremiah into the pit; while the king was sitting in the gate of Ben-
2 Chronicles 14 = 2 Chronicles XIV
8 And there came out against them Zerach the Ethiopian with an army of a thousand times thousand, and three hundred chariots; and he came as far as Mareshah. 9 Then went Assa out against him, and they set themselves in battle-array in the valley of Zephathah near Mareshah.
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: ^^^ Not sure but isn't that interesting, a Cushi that is neither slave nor servant... possibly being the same as a Pharaoh who was Lybian, Meswesh, and could be described as black...
That should violate Lioness's senses on two counts
none of it is my account, it's translations and nothing "violates"
Breadlum was asking about difference between usage of Cushi or Cushite and Ethiopian (entirely different topic from his status)
I haven't studied "Cushi" vs "Ethiopia" usage differences, but they appear to be a little random depending on translation
but he only used part of the verse to discuss that Look at the full verse on any or all of the translations as per the status of the person described, and note variations if there are some. Any problems take it up with the Most High -or translators, depending
quote:Originally posted by Yatunde Lisa Bey: Page 221
29. R. D. Haak, “‘Cush’ in Zephaniah,” in Holloway and Handy, The Pitcher Is Broken, pp. 238-51, esp. 249-50. Similarly Yeivin (“Topographic and Ethnic Notes II”), who thinks that the Kushites mentioned as being in the service of the kings of Judah (2 Sam 18:21ff., Jer 38:7) are descended from Ethiopian tribes that had settled in the Negev and assimilated among the Jews.
It was you who brought up this Curse of Ham book quote describing Kushites being "in the service of the kings" , whatever that means precisely - go back to the book for further details but begin with the full verses, whatever translation you prefer read on... this thread was about me noticing the "tall and smooth" verse. You are the one who brought up service
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Breadlum: What i don't get is why they translate it as “Cushite” in one verse but “Ethiopian” in another verse. Assuming that the part you posted about the identification of Ebed-melech only being that of a “Cushite” is correct, why not just translate it the same way. Maybe the idea is that because he was eunich then he must have been specifically “Ethiopian”, but i still wouldn’t see a reason to translate it differently. Though obviously there were probably different translators, assuming the word being translated is just “Kushi/Cushi” or some variation of it, why not just translate it as “Cushite” and let the context (or lack thereof) fill in the blanks.
I don’t read Hebrew though so perhaps there are some subtleties I don’t understand. A brief internet search brought up this : hak·kū·šî, and there does seem to be some subtle differences in how it’s written in different passages.
But curiously we have this:
2 Samuel 18:32 HEB: לְאַבְשָׁל֑וֹם וַיֹּ֣אמֶר הַכּוּשִׁ֗י יִהְי֤וּ כַנַּ֙עַר֙ NAS: Absalom? And the Cushite answered, KJV: safe? And Cushi answered, INT: Absalom answered to the Cushite become man
2 Chronicles 14:9 HEB: אֲלֵיהֶ֜ם זֶ֣רַח הַכּוּשִׁ֗י בְּחַ֙יִל֙ אֶ֣לֶף NAS: Now Zerah the Ethiopian came KJV: against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host INT: against Zerah the Ethiopian an host of a thousand
Where the word “הַכּוּשִׁ֗י“ seems be written exactly the same in both texts, yet there are two translations.
Now a brief Wiki search produced this: The invasion, and its implied time-frame, means that the traditional view was to consider this Zerah to have actually been Usarkon II or Usarkon I,[3] both being rulers of Egypt. {The etymology being U-Serak-on}
So it seems that the basis could be in this case that Zerah was/is known to have an African origin, but that doesn’t really explain what happened with Ebel-melech.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable can clue me in.
This goes back to the problem of translations. The actual Hebrew word for black or very dark color in general is שָׁחוֹר 'shakhor'. Often times the word for black person is כּוּשִׁי 'cushi' (sing.) 'cushim' (plur.) because the Cushim people of Arabia and apparently the Negev were black or very dark in complexion. These are the blacks that the Israelites came most in contact with and were citizens of their kingdom. Second, to these would be Africans like Egyptians and Nubians. It was later European translators (Medieval and onward) who would confuse Cushim for the Kushites of Nubia and thus 'Ethiopians'. But not everyone labeled as 'Ethiopian' was actually from ancient Ethiopia which was Nubian Kush. By the way, apparently 'cushi' is considered a pejorative slur for black person and racist Jews would use it like the n-word which is funny considering that it's original use was totally neutral in nature.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah i came across that part about Cushi being a pejorative while i was googling. Was going to ask how a neutral word for black person morphed into a slur, but i guess the same thing sort of happened with “Negro”, in a sense.
-------------------- "One dog ain't enough, and two is too low" - Three Dog
posted
^ Any word can become a slur if used in a derogatory way long enough. I was surprised to learn not too long ago from my black friends that even the label 'black' was once viewed as slur in the African American community at one point until movements in the late 50s and 60s rehabilitate its usage.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
But I don't look Jet Black, I am actually medium brown, with 35% European admixture and 7% Native American admixture
But I am still black american ( ethnically ) just like the Cushim in the Sinai would still be Cush even with mixing and admixture...
Moving along
MSG 23 Can an African change skin? Can a leopard get rid of its spots? So what are the odds on you doing good, you who are so long-practiced in evil? CSB 23 Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil.
-------------------- It's not my burden to disabuse the ignorant of their wrong opinions Posts: 2699 | From: New York | Registered: Jun 2015
| IP: Logged |
MSG 23 Can an African change skin? Can a leopard get rid of its spots? So what are the odds on you doing good, you who are so long-practiced in evil? CSB 23 Can the Cushite change his skin, or a leopard his spots? If so, you might be able to do what is good, you who are instructed in evil.
Jeremiah 13:23
some translations use "Ethiopian", others "Cushite" and other words
______________________
Sefraia Tanakh
הֲיַהֲפֹ֤ךְ כּוּשִׁי֙ עוֹר֔וֹ וְנָמֵ֖ר חֲבַרְבֻּרֹתָ֑יו גַּם־אַתֶּם֙ תּוּכְל֣וּ לְהֵיטִ֔יב לִמֻּדֵ֖י הָרֵע׃ Can the Cushite change his skin, Or the leopard his spots? Just as much can you do good, Who are practiced in doing evil!
_______
JPS Tanakh 1917
Can the Ethiopian change his skin, Or the leopard his spots? Then may ye also do good, That are accustomed to do evil.
____________________________________
NASB 1995 "Can the Ethiopian change his skin Or the leopard his spots? Then you also can do good Who are accustomed to doing evil.
King James Bible Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
English Revised Version Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
Literal Standard Version “Does a Cushite change his skin? And a leopard his spots? Can you also do good, who are accustomed to do evil?
Young's Literal Translation Doth a Cushite change his skin? and a leopard his spots? Ye also are able to do good, who are accustomed to do evil.
Brenton Septuagint Translation If the Ethiopian shall change his skin, or the leopardess her spots, then shall ye be able to do good, having learnt evil.
Smith's Literal Translation Will the Cushite change his skin and the panther his variegated spots? Ye shall also be able to do good, being taught to do evil.
Geneva Bible of 1587 Can the blacke More change his skin? or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do euill.
Bishops' Bible of 1568 May a man of Inde chaunge his skinne, and the cat of the mountayne her spottes? so, may ye that be exercised in euyll, do good?
Coverdale Bible of 1535 For like as the man of Inde maye chaunge his skynne, & the cat of the mountayne hir spottes: so maye ye that be exercised in euell, do good.
_______________________________
Translations from Aramaic Peshitta Holy Bible Translated And as an Indian cannot change his skin or a leopard his spots, also you cannot do good, because you have learned evil
Lamsa Bible Just as a Hindu cannot change his skin or a leopard his spots, you also cannot do good because you are accustomed to do evil.
_______________________________
^^ 4 versions above using Indian or Hindu
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The Greek name Aithiopia (Αἰθιοπία, from Αἰθίοψ, Aithíops, 'an Ethiopian') is a compound derived of two Greek words: αἴθω, aíthō, 'I burn' + ὤψ, ṓps, 'face'. According to the Perseus Project, this designation properly translates in noun form as burnt-face and in adjectival form as red-brown.[4][5] As such, it was used as a vague term for dark-skinned populations since the time of Homer.[i][6] The term was applied to such peoples when within the range of observation of the ancient geographers, primarily in what was then Nubia (in ancient Sudan). With the expansion of geographical knowledge, the exonym successively extended to certain other areas below the Sahara. In classical antiquity, the term Africa (or 'Ancient Libya') did not refer to any part of sub-Saharan Africa, but instead to what is now known as the Maghreb and all the desert land west of the southern Nile river.
Before Herodotus Homer (c. 8th century BC) is the first to mention "Aethiopians" (Αἰθίοπες, Αἰθιοπῆες), writing that they are to be found at the east and west extremities of the world, divided by the sea into "eastern" (at the sunrise) and "western" (at the sunset). In Book 1 of the Iliad, Thetis visits Olympus to meet Zeus, but the meeting is postponed, as Zeus and other gods are absent, visiting the land of the Aethiopians
The Egyptian priest Manetho (c. 300 BC) listed Kushite (25th) dynasty, calling it the "Aethiopian dynasty," and Esarhaddon the early 7th century BC ruler of the Neo-Assyrian Empire describes deporting all "Aethiopians" from Egypt upon conquering Egypt from the Nubian Kushite Empire which formed the 25th Dynasty. Moreover, when the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek (c. 200 BC), the Hebrew appellation "Kush, Kushite" became in Greek "Aethiopia, Aethiopians", appearing as "Ethiopia, Ethiopians" in the English King James Version.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes and the majority Biblical use of the term "Cush" or "Cushite" refers to peoples south of Egypt or including part of today's Southern Egypt, on into today's Sudan, not the area in the Horn of Africa which adopted the name "Ethiopia." Same with New Testament. The Ethiopian or Cushite chariot rider in Acts 8 was in the service of "the Candace" as queen, a Cushite or "Nubian title, not the Horn.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) but i plan on it soon.
Printer-friendly view of this topic