For those readers interested in the life of Joseph who preceded Moses, it is recommended to read Chapter XXXIII Manasseh & Ephraim, as well as Appendix VII Joseph & Imhotep: One man, different name? Similarly, readers seeking information on Moses’s early life, there is a section in Chapter XIII Cush & Phut, an article, The Military Man & the Queen of the South, as well as additional information in Chapter XXVII Abraham and Appendix IV, an unconventional chronology.
The first Pharaoh of dynasty XII in Egypt was Amenemhet I [meaning ‘Amun is at the Head’], also known as Sehetepibre [meaning ‘Satisfied is the heart of Re’] and he began his rule in 1655 BCE, reigning for twenty-nine years. He had no royal blood per se, not being related to his predecessors of the XI Dynasty and had possibly overthrown the previous king. Amenemhet is believed to have been a Vizier for Mentuhotep IV; though scholars fluctuate on whether he actually murdered the Pharaoh. A stone plate found at Lisht, bears the names of Mentuhotep and Amenenmhet together; perhaps indicating a co-regency towards the end of Mentuhotep’s reign.
Amenemhet’s father was a priest at Thebes called Senuseret and his mother was named Nefret. Their family is reported to have come from Elephantine – near modern Aswan – in southern Egypt. He was called ‘Amenemhet the Seizer of the Two Lands’ – Amenemhet-itj-tawy. Historian Mantheo states that the XII Dynasty was based in Thebes, though contemporary records reveal the first Pharaoh moved the capital to Itjtawy – somewhere between five to twenty years into his reign – and is thought to be near the Fayoum Oasis and the royal graveyards at el-Lisht and his Pyramid at el-Lisht, where his son also built a pyramid. This region was also near Memphis, just south of the apex of the Nile Delta.
The XII Dynasty was renowned for its wealth and stability – no doubt greatly contributed to by the enslavement of the Israelites – as evidenced by the quality of its statues, reliefs and paintings. Amenemhet I consolidated his power by retaining the monarchs who had supported him, strengthening a centralised government and increasing bureaucracy, while weakening the regional governors by appointing new officials. He diluted the army’s power and raised personnel for future conflicts by reintroducing conscription. His policy was one of conquest and colonisation, with the main aim to obtain raw materials, especially gold. During the XII Dynasty there was a decided increase in mineral wealth of the royal family as well as jewellery caches in their royal burials. The standard of living for all Egyptians was also seen to have improved during the XII Dynasty.
The XII Dynasty kings continued to rule Egypt with a firm hand from the central authorities down to the local administrations. They effectively imposed rule on northern Nubia – in large part credited to the military success of a man called Moses [refer Chapter XIII Cush & Phut] – and pacified the Arabian nations to the east as well as the people of Phut [Libya] to the west. Imposing fortresses were built past the southern border with Nubia [Cush] and in the east towards Canaan and Arabia.
Amenemhet appears to have been a wise leader, assuring a legitimate succession and protecting Egypt’s borders from potential invasions. Yet in possible irony to how he gained the throne, Amenemhet I was himself assassinated by his own guards in 1626 BCE, while his son was leading a campaign in Libya and buried at el-Lisht. His son and co-regent from 1635 was Senusret I or Kheperkare [meaning ‘the Ka of Re’], who reigned to 1590 BCE. His wife and sister Neferu was the mother of Senusret’s son and successor, Amenemhet II. He was the second king of the dynasty and was also known as Sesostris I or Senwosret I.
He furthered his father’s aggressive expansionist policies against Nubia, in initiating two expeditions into this region in his 10th and 18th years of reign; establishing Egypt’s formal southern border near the second cataract, where he placed both a garrison and a victory stele. Senusret I established diplomatic relations with rulers in Syria and Canaan. He dispatched several quarrying expeditions to the Sinai and built numerous shrines and temples throughout Egypt and Nubia during his long reign. He rebuilt the important temple of Re-Atum in Heliopolis; the centre of the Sun cult. He erected two red granite obelisks in Heliopolis to celebrate his 30th year of rule in 1605 BCE. One of the obelisks still remains and is the oldest standing obelisk in Egypt; being 67 feet tall and weighing 120 tons.
Senusret I was one of the most powerful kings of the XII Dynasty, taking a lead in military matters within his father’s government and would have known Joseph. For Joseph died in 1616 BCE at the age of 110 years, during the nineteenth year of Senusret I joint reigns. It would be 170 years until the Exodus of the Israelites from bondage.
Intriguingly, Senusret I had two viziers during his lengthy reign. The first at the beginning was known as Intefiqer, who held office for a long time before the second vizier. Intefiqer is known from numerous inscriptions and tellingly from his tomb adjacent to the Pyramid of none other than Amenemhet I.
The Book of Jasher chapter 59 says: ‘And Joseph lived in the land of Egypt ninety-three years, and Joseph reigned over all Egypt eighty years… Joseph died in that year, the seventy-first year of the Israelites going down to Egypt. And Joseph was one hundred and ten years old when he died in the land of Egypt, and all his brethren and all his servants rose up and they embalmed Joseph, as was their custom, and his brethren and all Egypt mourned over him for seventy days. And they put Joseph in a coffin filled with spices and all sorts of perfume, and they buried him by the side of the river, that is Sihor, and his sons and all his brethren, and the whole of his father’s household made a seven day’s mourning for him. Andit came to pass after the death of Joseph, all the Egyptians began in those days to rule over the children of Israel, and Pharaoh, king of Egypt, who reigned in his father’s stead, took all the laws of Egypt and conducted the whole government of Egypt under his counsel, and he reigned securely over his people.’
Now, Joseph’s brother Levi, was the last sibling of Joseph and son of Jacob to die in 1611 BCE. The Book of Jasher chapter 63 states: ‘And… Levi was a hundred and thirty-seven years old when he died, and they put him into a coffin and he was given into the hands of his children.
And it came to pass after the death of Levi, when all Egypt saw that the sons of Jacob the brethren of Joseph were dead, all the Egyptians began to afflict the children of Jacob, and to embitter their lives from that day unto the day of their going forth from Egypt, and they took from their hands all the vineyards and fields which Joseph had given unto them, and all the elegant houses in which the people of Israel lived, and all the fat of Egypt, the Egyptians took all from the sons of Jacob in those days.’
In Exodus chapter 1, it confirms: ‘Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. And he said to his people, “Behold, the people of Israel are too many and too mighty for us. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and, if war breaks out, they join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.” 11 Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses’ which was retrospectively named [Exodus 1:11].
These cities were built in Goshen located in the southeastern Nile Delta, where the Israelites dwelt [Genesis 45:10-11]. Excavations at the site of Tell ed-Daba at Raamses or Pi-Ramesse have shown that though built by the XIX Dynasty Pharaoh Ramesses II, it was built upon an older city called Avaris. Archaeologists have confirmed a number of salient points. The people who once lived there were ‘Semitic in origin’, pottery finds include those of a Levantine or land of Canaan source and the remains of a large amount of sheep were discovered, indicating a shepherding people [Genesis 30:43; 31:17].
As Pharaoh’s command to execute male newborns is recorded in Exodus 1:22, there are an abnormal amount of burials for children 18 months or younger at 65% of total burials; far exceeding the average death rate at the time of 20 to 30%. Along with this is a higher than normal number of women buried too, indicating they died while protecting their children.
It was in 1593 BCE, when Amenemhet II or Nubkhaure [meaning ‘Golden are the Souls of Re’] succeeded his father Senusret I; though he had been co-regent for two years prior as recorded on the stele of Wepwaweto. Amenemhet II was an imperialistic Pharaoh, launching mining expeditions to the Sinai and military expeditions against Kush and into Asia. It was this Pharaoh who is recorded in the Books of Jasher and Exodus – for he was likely born after Joseph’s death – when the change of attitude towards the Israelites arose, their lands were taken, their wealth confiscated and their subjugation began.
Pharaoh Amenemhet II – first king to not know Joseph and enslave the Israelites
The Israelite affliction beginning some 23 years after Joseph’s death and 18 years after Levi’s death. The reign of Pharaoh Amenemhet II lasted until 1558 BCE and so by this time the Israelite enslavement was complete [Genesis 50:24-25, Exodus 1:8-22]. Giving 147 – the age of Jacob when he died – years of affliction until the Exodus.
Thus it is feasible that Moses would have recognised the affliction of his own people from about 1516 BCE, when he was 10 years old. The Israelites had already served 77 years of slavery; with 70 years of captivity remaining.
The most important monument of Amenemhet’s reign are the fragments found at Memphis of an annual stone, reused in the New Kingdom. It reports events of the early years of his reign; including donations to various temples as well as a campaign to Southern Palestine and the destruction of two cities. Nubians bringing tribute are recorded. His White Pyramid was constructed at Dahshur. Why he chose the location associated with the IV Dynasty and not el-Lisht remains unanswered. Next to the pyramid, tombs of several royal women were found and some of them were undisturbed, still containing golden jewellery of excellent craftsmanship as indicative of the era.
An online comment: “There has been evidence brought forward that shows that the face of the Great Sphinx of Giza is that of Amenemhat II. The evidence includes statements made by German Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt suggesting that the eye-paint cosmetics seen on the Sphinx were not seen before the 6th Dynasty (making it unlikely to have represented Khafra as typically assumed) and that the pleated stripes on the nemes headress are in groups of three, a very specific style seen exclusively during the 12th Dynasty. The same stripes, eye-paint, and facial structure are present on Amenemhat’s sphinx statue in the Louvre. It is concluded by this evidence that the statue[s]… original head was damaged beyond repair, and that Amenemhat II carved his own likeness into the existing head and neck to save the structure (explaining why the Sphinx’s head is so disproportionately small).”
Senusret II [meaning ‘Man of Goddess Wosret’] or Khakheperre [meaning ‘Soul of Re comes into Being’] was the son of Amenemhet II and co-regent for two years from 1560 BCE, ruling until 1548 BCE – the 4th king of the XII Dynasty.
An online comment: “Of the rulers of this Dynasty, the length of Senusret II’s reign is the most debated amongst scholars. The Turin Canon gives an unknown king of the Dynasty a reign of 19 Years, (which is usually attributed to Senusret II), but Senusret II’s highest known date is currently only a Year 8 red sandstone stela found in June 1932 in a long unused quarry at Toshka. Some scholars prefer to ascribe him a reign of only 10 Years and assign the 19 Year reign to Senusret III instead. Other Egyptologists, however… have maintained the traditional view of a longer 19 Year reign for Senusret II given the level of activity undertaken by the king during his reign… [noting] that limiting Senusret II’s reign to only 6 or 10 years poses major difficulties… Senusret II may not have shared a coregency with his son… unlike most other Middle Kingdom rulers. Some scholars are of the view that he did, noting a scarab with both kings names inscribed on it, a dedication inscription celebrating the resumption of rituals begun by Senusret II and III, and a papyrus which was thought to mention Senusret II’s 19th year and Senusret III’s first year. None of these… items, however, necessitate a coregency.
Moreover, the evidence from the papyrus document is now obviated by the fact that the document has been securely dated to Year 19 of Senusret III and Year 1 of Amenemhet III. At present, no document from Senusret II’s reign has been discovered from Lahun, the king’s new capital city.”
Senusret II
Senusret’s pyramid was constructed as El-Lahun, close to the Fayoum Oasis. Senusret II took interest in the Faiyum oasis region and initiated work on an extensive irrigation system from Bahr Yusuf to Lake Moeris through the construction of a dike at El-Lahun and a network of drainage canals, turning a vast area of marshlands into agricultural land; thereby increasing the area of cultivable land. The importance of Senusret’s project is emphasised by his decision to move the royal necropolis from Dahshur to El-Lahun. This location would remain the political capital for the XII and XIII Dynasties of Egypt. The king also established the first known ‘workers’ quarter’ in the nearby town of Senusrethotep, also known as Kahun.
Like his father, Senusret II’s reign is considered a peaceful one; using diplomacy with neighbours rather than warfare, as there are no recoded military campaigns during his reign. His trade with the Near East was particularly prolific. His great interest in the Fayoum, elevated the region in importance. Its growing recognition is attested to, by a number of pyramids built both before and after his reign in or near the oasis [though the Fayoum is not a true oasis]. As kings usually built their royal palaces near their mortuary complexes, many of the future kings also made their home in the Fayoum.
Senusret II is further attested too, with a sphinx, which is now in the Cairo Egyptian Antiquity Museum and by inscriptions of both himself and his father near Aswan. The pyramid town associated with Senusret II’s complex, Lahun or Kahun after the nearby modern village, provided much valuable information to archaeologists and Egyptologists on the common lives of Egyptians. Pyramid towns were comprised of communities of workmen, craftsmen and administrators associated with any given king’s pyramid project.
Senusret II was succeeded by his son Senusret III or Khakaure, who ostensibly reigned to 1529 BCE as the 5th king and considered the most powerful of the Middle Kingdom Pharaohs. World History Encyclopedia says: ‘His reign is often considered the height of the Middle Kingdom which was the Golden Age in Egypt’s history in so far as art, literature, architecture, science, and other cultural aspects reached an unprecedented level of refinement, the economy flourished, and military and trade expeditions filled the nation’s treasury. In Senusret III the people found the epitome of the ideal warrior-king… whose reign was characterized by military skill, decisive action, and efficient administration. At the head of his army, he was considered invincible… the Nubians so respected him that he was venerated in their land as a god… The Egyptians conferred upon him the rare honor of deifying him while he still lived…’
Among his achievements was the building of the Sisostris Canal and due to the peace achieved after his military campaigns; a revival in craftwork, trade and urban development. Senusret III relentlessly expanded his kingdom into Nubia, erecting massive river forts. He conducted at least four major campaigns into Nubia in his reign years 8, 10, 16 and 19 respectively. Senusret III Year 8 stela at Semna documents his victories against the Nubians, whereby he is thought to have made the southern frontier secure; preventing further incursions into Egypt. A great stela from Semna dated to the third month of Year 16 of his reign, records his military accomplishments against the lands of Nubia and Canaan. In it, he admonishes his future successors to maintain the new border which he had created.
The Year 16 border stela of Senusret III in the Altes Museum, Berlin
It is plausible that Senusret III reigned longer that 19 years and shared a co-regency with his son for 20 years. The reason being the length of the Temple work for Senusret III. An online comment: “Wegner stresses that it is unlikely that Amenemhet III, Senusret’s son and successor would still be working on his father’s temple nearly 4 decades into his own reign [of 46 years]. He notes that the only possible solution for the block’s existence here is that Senusret III had a 39-year reign, with the final 20 years in coregency with his son Amenemhet III. Since the project was associated with a project of Senusret III, his Regnal Year was presumably used to date the block, rather than Year 20 of Amenemhet III. This implies that Senusret was still alive in the first two decades of his son’s reign [1529 to 1509 BCE].” Senusret III, unlike his immediate forbears built his pyramid at Dashur. It was the largest of the XII Dynasty pyramids, but as with others with a mudbrick core, it deteriorated considerably once the casing stones were removed.
This is the background of the family that Moses was thrust into from a babe, radically changing his destiny and altering his life forever. It was during the Pharaoh Senusret III’s reign that big sister Miriam was born in 1536 BCE. She would have been merely 10 years old when she witnessed her mother hide Moses in the bulrushes of the River Nile and watched closely while the Egyptian princess and daughter of the new Pharaoh, rescued little baby Moses [Exodus 2:1-10]. It was three years earlier in 1529 BCE that Senusret III’s son, Amenemhet III or Nimaatre [meaning ‘Belonging to the Justice of Re’], ascended the throne as the 6th king of the XII Dynasty. It was also the same year that Moses’s brother Aaron was born.
Moses was born three years later in 1526 BCE, exactly 90 years after the death of Joseph. There are two Pharaoh’s of considerable significance in Egyptian history by virtue of their relationship with the Eternal’s servant Moses.
They are firstly, the Pharaoh of the Exodus and secondly, the Pharaoh who was the father of the PrincessSobeknefru who adopted Moses as her own son. Both these Pharaoh’s identities have been shrouded in mystery; yet revised and accurate chronologies now testify to the real personalities that existed in this prominent and dramatic epoch of both the well-established Egyptian and fledgling Israelite histories.
The latest known date for Amenemhet III was found in a papyrus dated to Regnal Year 46 of his rule. Amenemhet is regarded as the greatest monarch of the Middle Kingdom. He built his first pyramid at Dahshur, called the ‘Black Pyramid’ but construction problems meant it was abandoned. About year 15 of his reign in 1514 BCE, the king decided to build a new pyramid at Hawara; while the pyramid at Dahshur was used as burial ground for several royal women.
An online comment: “His mortuary temple at Hawara, is accompanied by a pyramid and may have been known to Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus as the “Labyrinth”. Strabo praised it as a wonder of the world. The king’s pyramid at Hawara contained some of the most complex security features of any found in Egypt… Nevertheless, the king’s burial was robbed in antiquity. The pyramidion of Amenemhet III’s pyramid tomb was found toppled from the peak of its structure and preserved relatively intact; it is today located in the Egyptian Cairo Museum. The Rhind Mathematical Papyrus is thought to have been originally composed during Amenemhat’s time.”
The military exploits of his predecessors allowed Amenemhet III a peaceful reign upon which to concentrate on building projects, exploit the mineral wealth of the quarries and conduct successful diplomatic relationships with neighbouring states. It is said that he was honoured and respected from Kerma to Byblos and during his reign many eastern workers, including peasants, soldiers and craftsmen, moved to Egypt. The extensive building works, together with possibly a series of low Nile floods, may have placed a strain on the economy by the end of his reign. Upon the king’s death, he was buried in his second pyramid at Hawara.
An online comment: “Amenemhet III is also attested to by an unusual set of statues probably of Amenemhet III and Senusret III that shows the two in archaic priestly dress and offering fish, lotus flowers and geese. These statues are very naturalistic but show the king in the guise of a Nile god. There was also a set of sphinxes… believed to have been built on the orders of Amenemhet III… all these statues were discovered reused in the Third Intermediate Period temples at Tanis.”
Nigel Hawkins remarks: “Modern thinking using the revised chronology results in [a] much clearer picture with the history [of] Israel and Egypt lining up and matching archaeological records. This would fit with the theory that Amenemhet III was the Pharaoh of Moses who oppressed the Israelites… Also of note is that… After Joseph’s death, the Israelites were given the task of making mud bricks.
Interestingly, the core of the Pyramid of Amenemhet III is made of mud bricks containing straw… Amenemhet III… had only daughters who had a son (Amenemhet IV) who disappeared before he could become King. It has been suggested that Amenemhet IV was Moses.”
And for good reason, as Amenemhet IV is a rather enigmatic figure during the XII Dynasty period of Egypt. There are a number of anomalies that belie the identity of this personage and Moses being one and the same. Anne Habermehl brings to attention key points: “… an unsuccessful search for the pharaoh’s body (Sparks, 1986). The reign of Amenemhat IV was brief; many believe that he reigned for a total of nine years (Gardiner, 1964, page 140). Edwards (1988, page 223) suggests that he might not have reigned separately at all, but only as a co-regent with the previous pharaoh, his father, Amenemhat III. Amenemhat IV had a son, Ameni, whose name appears along with that of his father on a glazed steatite plaque in the British Museum; in the inscription this son is called “The son of the Sun of his body” (Budge, 1902; British Museum, 1891). This is of note because Amenemhat IV does not appear to have left any known male heirs (Salisbury, 2001, page 327).”
Habermehl continues: “… Sobekneferu reigned for about four years (Shaw, 2003, page 482), and the 12th Dynasty ended. A mystery associated with her is that as pharaoh, she does not mention Amenemhat IV, her predecessor, in the various inscriptions; she associates herself only with her father, Amenemhat III, andcalls herself “king’s daughter,” never “king’s sister” or “king’s wife” (Callender, 1998, pages 230–31). The “disappearance” of Amenemhat IV from the space between Amenemhat III and Sobekneferu is a peculiarity of history that has given Egyptologists much leeway for speculation. Callender (1998, page 230) suggests that by linking herself to Amenemhat III, Sobekneferu intended to strengthen the legitimacy of her reign. Some suggest that there may even have been a family feud (Gardiner, 1964, page 141). Courville (1971, volume 1, page 224) notes that Amenemhat IV is not recognized in the Sothis king’s list “for reasons which can only be speculative at this time.”
It is completely understandable that Moses’s adoptive mother did not mention her son, Amenemhet IV; as he was not her brother or husband. Sobekneferu associating herself with her predecessor and father, Amenemhet III is only natural in the succession. Yes, there had been a family feud, in that Moses spectacularly murdered an Egyptian guard and fled Egypt in 1486 BCE [Exodus 2:11-15]. This was three years before his adoptive father died and Queen Sobekneferu became Pharaoh.
In 1494 BCE Moses co-ruled as Amenemhet IV and was also known as Amenemes IV or Maakherure; being the 7th king of the XII Dynasty, for eight years from the age of 32. Old records from the Alexandria Library in Egypt, recount an Egyptian ruler who commanded a successful military campaign against the land of Kush [refer Chapter XIII Cush & Phut and The Military Man & the Queen of the South].
The Jewish historian Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews also refers to a campaign by Moses who invaded the country by way of the Nile Valley, heading southwards pass the Third Cataract. An earlier Jewish historian Artapanus in Peri Ioudaion, stated that ‘Mousos’ popularity had grown with the conquest of Ethiopia.’
Amenemhet IV completed Amenemhet III’s temple at Medinet Maadi, which is “the only intact temple still existing from the Middle Kingdom” according to Zahi Hawass, Secretary-General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities [SCA]. “The temple’s foundations, administrative buildings, granaries and residences were… uncovered by an Egyptian archaeological expedition in early 2006. Amenemhat IV likely also built a temple in the northeastern Fayum at Qasr el-Sagha.” The Turin Canon papyrus records a reign of 9 Years 3 months and 27 days for Amenemhat IV. His short reign was peaceful and uneventful. A handful of dated expeditions were recorded at the Serabit el-Khadim mines in the Sinai. It was after his disappearance that the gradual decline of the Middle Kingdom is believed to have begun.
Prior to this, Egypt’s wealth and power had reached a peak during the reigns of Senusret III and his son Amenemhet III and this economic wealth is in direct correlation to the incrementally increasing abuse inflicted upon the Israelites as they were subjugated to provide the labour involved in bringing the grandiose building projects of the XII Dynasty kings to fruition, including the pyramids. Yet in stark contrast to the benefit the Hebrews were bringing to Egypt, the Pharaoh felt the pressurising need to cull the the Israelite population before they outnumbered the Egyptians. For their population was at least 2 million people or above in Egypt and as confirmed later in a census, where they numbered 600,000 men [Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:46] of fighting age [20 to 50 years, Numbers 1:45; 4:47].
Moses was born at this crucial juncture in time; though as Amenemhet III had no sons of his own he allowed his daughter Sobekneferu, to adopt this attractive and wonderful little baby boy that she had found left in a basket among the bullrushes of the Nile.
Thus the Hebrew slaves who lived in Kahun were given the task of producing mud bricks containing straw to then be used in the varied building projects of the Pharaohs of the XII dynasty. The mud bricks were integral in the construction of the pyramid cores. There were at least seven pyramids constructed during the XII dynasty which spanned about 180 years. The Labyrinth at Hawara, constructed by Amenemhet III contained millions of mud bricks and with over a thousand rooms, it was considered one of the wonders of the ancient world. A very large slave labour force was required to support these building exploits and the number of Israelite slaves meant there were more than enough to meet the successive Pharaoh’s expectations.
These Pharaohs of the XII Dynasty had forgotten what Joseph or Imhotep had done for Egypt and had therefore exerted an increasing oppression towards his family’s descendants as they grew in size.
The XIII dynasty pharaohs did not undertake on the same scale the massive construction projects of their XII dynasty predecessors, but they continued in harshly oppressing the descendants of Jacob. The Eternal saw their suffering and remembered his promise to Abraham [Exodus 6:1-12].
And so from the age of forty, Amenemhat IV lived with Jethro of Midian and married his daughter Zipporrah, who was his second wife. According to the Egyptian priest Manetho, Moses’s original name in Egypt was purportedly Osarsiph or Auserre-Apophi; but when he departed Egypt his name was supposedly changed, to Moses [Against Apion I:250].
In 1483 BCE, just three years after Moses’s disappearance, Amenemhet III died and from 1483 to 1479, a mere four years, possibly as little as three, Queen Sobekneferu or Sobekkare and Neferusobek, ‘the beauty of Sobek’ was the 8th and final ruler of the XII Dynasty. Sobekneferu had an older sister, Nefruptah who might have been the intended heir though she died at an early age. Neferuptah’s name was enclosed in a cartouche and she had her own pyramid at Hawara. Sobekneferu is the first ever known archeologically attested female Pharaoh. According to the Turin Canon, she ruled for 3 years, 10 months, and 24 days. She died without an heir and the end of her reign spelled the conclusion of Egypt’s brilliant XII Dynasty and the Golden Age of the Middle Kingdom.
The suddenness of Amenemhet’s death and the brevity of Sobekneferu’s reign may be indicators of the heartfelt sorrow and mourning they both experienced after Moses’s shattering and hasty departure. Even though Pharaoh had initially shown rage and had sought to kill Moses [Exodus 2:15].
Gerard Gertoux discusses Moses’s name and early life: “… As Pharaoh’s daughter was not able to speak Hebrew, the name Moses must be Egyptian. One can notice that in Hebrew this name probably means “pulled out (mosheh)” (the word “water” is missing), whereas in Egyptian it means “Water’s son (mu-sa)”. Moses did not receive this Egyptian name from his parents, but from Pharaoh’s daughter after his “baptism” in the Nile. As it was received after the age of 3 months (the text of Exodus 2:10 even suggests after his weaning), it was therefore a nickname and not a birth name (like Israel is the nickname for Jacob, his birth name). The name of Hebrew children was given by parents based on a striking condition at birth. As Moses was beautiful at his birth, which is emphasized by biblical texts (Exodus 2:2) as by Josephus (Jewish Antiquities II:231), “divinely beautiful” in Acts 7:20, he had to have been called “very beautiful”. In Hebrew “beautiful” is rendered as Ioppa (Joshua 19:46) and “splendid” as iepepiah (Jeremiah 46:20).”
Gertoux continues: “Moses was adopted as [the] king’s son through Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:10). Adoption in the royal family conferred on its holder the honorific title of “king’s son.” If the daughter of Pharaoh had the prestigious position of Wife of the god, she would have been able to confer dynastic position to his son who could have been considered not just a king… but as a co-regent. Some Egyptian accounts show that women of royal origin could play an important role in the choice of future pharaohs.
The Bible speaks little of the royal position of Moses during the first 40 years of his life, but one can guess it implicitly in the following texts: The man Moses too was very great in the land of Egypt, in the eyes of Pharaoh’s servants and in the eyes of the people (Exodus 11:3); the daughter of Pharaoh picked him up and brought him up as her own son. Consequently Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. In fact, he was powerful in his words and deeds (Acts 7:21-22); By faith Moses, when grown up, denied to be called the son of the daughter of Pharaoh, choosing to be ill-treated with the people of God rather than to have the temporary enjoyment of sin, because he esteemed the reproach of the Christ as riches greater than the treasures of Egypt (Hebrews 11:24-26).
Renunciation [by] Moses of the treasures of Egypt makes sense only if he really had them thanks to his royal status. Something can be denied only if it has been owned… [after] he struck the Egyptian down and hid him in the sand… Moses now got afraid and… ran away from Pharaoh that he might dwell in the land of Midian… About this new period of 40 years… in the 120 years of Moses’ life… very little is known.”
It was while Moses was living in Midian from 1486 to 1446 BCE, that his father, Amram died in 1455 BCE at the age of 137 years.
We discovered the intimate relationship the Eternal had with Abraham, calling him his friend [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham]. An online comment regarding the similar friendship between Moses and the Eternal: “And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. These words are spoken of Moses in Exodus 33:11, The Lord spoke with Moses face to face… The Hebrew word for “friend” used here is the word, rea (H7453). This word suggests intimacy, companionship, and reciprocal relationship. Numbers 12:8 says this of Moses, I speak with him directly, openly, and not in riddles; he sees the form of the Lord.
Throughout the life of Moses we see over and over again, this open conversation with God. It is important to note, that this level of relationship/friendship requires intentionality and regular communication. Moses did not only speak to God once in a while, or only when he needed something, but as a friend, he maintained regular and open communication with God. When Moses is forced to flee Egypt he ends up in Midian at the home of the priest of Midian, Jethro (… his father-in-law). The family name of Jethro is, Reuel (Exodus 2:18). In Hebrew the name Reuel means, “friend of God” (H7467). The years spent working for Jethro were formative to Moses understanding of who God is.
Moses was able to do what he was called to only after his time spent learning who God is, and establishing this friend relationship. I find it interesting that the man who would be known as a friend of God, Moses, spent more than 40 years learning of God at the feet of a man whose name is, “friend of God”, Reuel.”
After the short reign of Moses’s mother, Queen Sobekneferu the XII Dynasty came to an abrupt end, though the unrelenting captivity of Moses’s people remained unabated. A new era after the stability of the XII Dynasty was in stark contrast for its instability, caused by famine, intrigue, chaos and disorder during the XIII Dynasty era. A correct chronology is difficult to discern as there were few monuments from this period. The kings had very short reigns, did not descended from single family lines and many were not royalty and deemed commoners.
It is next to impossible to compile a comprehensive list of the number of rulers or the length of their reigns and hence an accurate chronology for the XIII Dynasty. It is difficult to determine because many of the kings’ names are only drawn from fragmentary inscriptions or scarabs. Therefore, the placement of many kings attributed to this dynasty is very uncertain and disputed among Egyptologists. It is clear that the XII and XIII dynasties were closely aligned and the XIII may not have lasted very long at all. With its final 33 years occurring from the the end of Queen Sobekneferu’s reign to the end of the Exodus Pharaoh. Any ‘documentation of the 13th dynasty is in shambles which would not be unexpected if it ended in such disaster.’
Nigel Hawkins states: “The Exodus took place during the Reign of Neferhotep I during the 13th dynasty…”
Neferhotep I
Other notable Pharaohs of this Dynasty are the founding and first Pharaoh of the XIII Dynasty, Sekhemre Khutawy Sobekhotep or Wegaf, who ruled for 4 years – notice the similarity between his name and his predecessor Queen Sobek-neferu – Sobekhotep IV, who was the brother of Neferhotep I and possibly ruled for 10 to 20 years; as well as Sobekhotep III who preceded Neferhotep I, ruling for 4 years and the purportedly final kings of the Dynasty, Dudimose I and Dudimose II for less than a year.
An online comment: “A [tattered] papyrus scroll [fragment] (Brooklyn 35:1446) acquired by Charles Wilbur in the 19th Century and now in the Brooklyn Museum dates to the 13th Dynasty under Pharaoh Sobekhotep III [1461-1457 BCE]… Essentially it is a [royal] decree from the pharaoh authorizing the transfer [ownership] of slaves; of the 95 slaves mentioned by name, approximately 46 of them have their original Semitic names [such as Menahem (a king of Israel), Issachar and Asher] in addition to their Egyptian names each were assigned, something the Bible records as a common practice (Genesis 41:45).”
Neferhotep I was the son of a temple priest in Abydos. Notice the first part of his name is the same as the last part of Queen Sobek-nefer-u’s name. His father’s position helped him to gain the royal throne as the king, as he did not have aristocratic heritage or royal blood in his family line. Neferhotep I was from a family with a military background. His grandfather Nehy, held the title ‘officer of a town regiment’. Nehy married a woman called Senebtysy. Nothing is known about her, other than that she held the common title ‘lady of the house’. The only known son of their marriage, was called Haankhef. He is always in sources, enigmatically described as ‘God’s father’ and he married a woman called Kemi. Haankhef and Kemi were the parents of Neferhotep I.
The family of Neferhotep I appear to have originally come from Thebes. Neferhotep I’s brother, king Sobekhotep IV, stated that he was born there, on a stela that was placed during his reign in the temple of Amun at Karnak. However, the capital during the XIII Dynasty remained at Itjtawy in the north of Egypt, near the modern village of el-Lisht. Neferhotep’s wife was called Senebsen and they had a son called Haankhef or Wahneferhotep and a daughter called Kemi, after their grandparents.
Neferhotep I is inscribed on some stones discovered near Byblos*. Numerous other stones throughout Egypt and Lower Nubia, including in Aswan were carved with texts which document his reign – as well as family members and officials serving under the king – and that his power reached the Delta in the north and the Nubian Nome in the south. “The most important monument of the king is a large, heavily eroded stela dating to year two of the king’s reign, found at Abydos. The inscription on the stela is one of the few ancient Egyptian royal texts to record how a king might conceive of and order the making of a sculpture.”
It is not known under what circumstances Neferhotep I died and it remains a mystery; for his mummy has never been uncovered. A statue of Neferhotep was discovered beneath the temple of Karnak at Luxor as was another previously in 1904 in Luxor, now on display in the Egyptian Museum. His supposed successor was his brother, Sobekhotep IV – which may indicate that Haankhef was Neferhotep’s only son who died during the tenth plague – yet there are several monuments mentioning Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV together. This could well mean that they reigned for a period together.
Regardless, the reigns of the two brothers during the Thirteenth Dynasty marks the peak before a sudden collapse of this turbulent Egyptian dynasty. Pharaoh Neferhotep I or Khasekhemre was a powerful ruler of the XIII Dynasty and reigned 11 years from 1457 BCE until the Exodus – purportedly the 21st king of the XIII Dynasty. Only 22 years separated Neferhotep I from Queen Sobekneferu’s reign.
Gerard Gertoux adds: “The fact that the rulers of Byblos* used specific title suggests therefore that they regarded Byblos as an Egyptian domain and saw themselves as its governors on behalf of the Egyptian king. This situation is substantiated by two sources of a different nature, a relief found at Byblos” and a cylinder-seal of unknown provenance. The relief depicts the ‘Governor of Byblos Yantinu (in-t-n) who was begotten by Governor Yakin (y3-k-n)’ seated upon a throne in front of which is inscribed a cartouche with the prenomen and nomen of Neferhotep I. The cylinder-seal is inscribed for a certain Yakin-ilu in cuneiform on one side and the prenomen of king Sewesekhtawy on the other side. The fact to record the name of the Egyptian king within those specific context strongly suggests that they regarded themselves officially as subordinates of the Egyptian king. It is notable that it was the Egyptian king (13th dynasty) rather than the Canaanites kings (14th dynasty) who were recognized as the superiors at Byblos.”
Pharaoh Djedhotepre or Dudimose I – also known as Tutimaeus and Tutimaos by Mantheo – is accredited as ruling from 1450 to 1446 BCE in the New Chronology, or for the four years prior to the Exodus and is viewed as the 30th King of the unstable Thirteenth Dynasty.
Yet this dating is speculative. His similarity of name, Dudi-mose with Moses is noteworthy but not reason alone that he was contemporaneous with Moses. Aside from this, there is little support for him being the Pharaoh of the Exodus; but rather a later ruler in Egypt. Thus the catastrophe of the ten plagues and Exodus events brought collapse not just for Neferhotep I, but both the XIII and XIV Dynasties of Egypt in 1446 BCE. Thus ushering in the opportunistic Amalekite Hyksos, who invaded Lower Egypt during the demise of the XIII and XIV Dynasties. They constituted the rulers of the subsequent XV and XVI Dynasties.
The dramatic events that led to the Exodus comprised a series of disasters or plagues caused by the Eternal to drive the Pharaoh and Egyptian nation to despair and thereby release their captive Israelite slaves. The hardness of Pharaoh’s heart [Exodus 11:10] meant a diabolical tenth plague was required wherefore the eldest child of every Egyptian family died during the passing over of the Lord’s Death Angel [Exodus 11:4-5; 12:23, Hebrews 11:28, 2 Samuel 24:16-17].
The Ten Plagues are recorded in Exodus 7:14-25, 8:1-29, 9:6-31, 10:13-23, 12:28-26 and 14:7-28. The first plague occurred on the 7th day of the 12th month of Adar corresponding to February 11th and was the turning of the River Nile into blood. The second plague eight days later were a pestilence of frogs and on the 18th day of the 12th month it was lice. On February 25th, the fourth plague were swarms of flies and 3 days later there was the Great Murrain where Egypt’s livestock of cattle likely died from babesiosis. On the 25th day of Adar, the Egyptians were inflicted with boils; and then the seventh plague involving hail and fire, destroyed the mainstay crops of Barley and Flax and lasted from March 4th to the 5th. The eighth plague on the 2nd day of the first month, Nisan or Abib were swarms of locusts. The penultimate plague of complete and utter pitch black darkness began on March 12th and lasted for three days.
The tenth and final plague was savagely brutal and finally broke the resolve of the obstinate and stubborn Pharaoh. On the night of the 14th of Nisan or March 21st after midnight, the first born children of the Egyptians died [Exodus 12:29-30]. It was on this day that there was a Hybrid Solar Eclipse number 01321 at 09:05:39 and it lasted for 1 minute and 9 seconds. ‘Eclipses of the Sun can only occur during the New Moon phase. It is then possible for the Moon’s penumbral, umbral or antumbral shadows to sweep across Earth’s surface thereby producing an eclipse.’ There are four types of solar eclipses: Partial, Annular, Total and a Hybrid, where the ‘Moon’s umbral and antumbral shadows traverse Earth (eclipse appears annular and total along different sections of its path). Hybrid eclipses are also known as annular-total eclipses.’
Gerard Gertoux in The Pharaoh of the Exodus Fairy Tale or Real History, states: “The text of Ezekiel mentions the tragic end of a pharaoh and associates it with a cloudy sky and a solar eclipse (Ezekiel 32:2,7-8). This text targets the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the only one known for ending tragically (Psalm 136:15), because the terms “crocodile dragon/marine monster” always refer to this ruler (Isaiah 51:9-10) as an avatar of the sliding snake, Leviathan (Isaiah 27:1, Ezekiel 29:2-5, Psalm 74:13-14) and not Apries, the Pharaoh of that time whose name is given (Jeremiah 44:30). This process of assimilation between two rulers from different eras is to be found again with the king of Tyre who was assimilated to the original serpent in Eden (Ezekiel 28:12-14). The expression “All the luminaries of light in the heavens – I shall darken them on your account, and I will put darkness upon your land” has a symbolic meaning, but could be understood only if it had also a literal meaning (solar eclipse). The Pharaoh was considered a living god by the Egyptians, the son of Ra the sun god, thus the solar eclipse as a moonless night would have to have marked them.”
On the morning of the 15th of Nisan – in the year 1446 BCE on March 22nd – the Israelites hurriedly took leave from Egypt [Exodus 12:39, Numbers 33:3; 1 Kings 6:1, Psalm 105:23-45]. Two weeks later, the Israelites made it on foot to the Red Sea in Sinai and miraculously crossed [Exodus 14:21-22]. Pharaoh Neferhotep I and his pursuing army of 600 plus chariots [Exodus 14:5-8] perished the 30th day of Nisan or April 6th, when the walls of the Red Sea either side, collapsed in on them [Exodus 14:27-28]. Proving that Pharaoh Neferhotep I* was not a firstborn, as he did not die during the tenth plague.
Anne Habermehl adds: “This mystery of the pharaoh who went missing is a matter of great significance because the Egyptians did not normally lose track of their pharaohs. Indeed, they believed that the king’s ka (breath of life) contained the life force of all his living subjects. The pharaoh’s physical body was therefore needed for transfer of the kingship from the dead pharaoh’s body to the body of the new living pharaoh through rituals carried out at his pyramid. In addition, there were other religious implications of the dead mummified pharaoh preserved in his tomb. In causing the pharaoh’s physical body to be lost in the Red Sea, God dealt a major blow to the whole fabric of Egyptian belief and priestly practice. Not having the pharaoh’s body in hand was an unthinkable catastrophe. It appears that what happened (no doubt after desperate attempts to find the drowned pharaoh’s body) was that the transfer of kingship was now officially made from [Neferhotep I to his brother, Sobekhotep IV*]…”
Manfred Bietek, in his burrow at Tel ed-Baba, discovered in stratum G/1 an overwhelming number of shallow mass graves pits throughout the city of Avaris, where hundreds of bodies had been thrown in on top of each other. Clear proof of a sudden major calamity remarkably reminiscent of the scriptural Tenth Plague demise of the Egyptian firstborn. Site prehistoric studies also propose that the rest of the populace had surrendered their homes rapidly, coinciding with the simultaneous abandonment of the city by the people en-masse.
Creation Wiki states: “[English Egyptologist Sir] Flinders Petrie [1853-1942] found evidence to [support] that the town of Kahun was suddenly vacated… As so many tools and manuscripts were left behind, Petrie concluded that the village must have been evacuated fairly quickly. He also found the scarabs of various pharaohs including those of [Senusret II] (the earliest) and Neferhotep I (the latest). The most recent (latest) scarabs would indicate which pharaoh was ruling when the town was vacated, particularly if the pharaoh had been ruling for a while. The most recent scarabs found at Kahun were those of Neferhotep… [who] has the necessary credentials to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus…”
The simple triumph of the invading Amalekite Hyksos into Egypt can be readily explained with the sudden and dramatic loss of Egypt’s whole armed forces. Avaris was completely resettled, as the archaeological record reveals an Asiatic people in origin had plundered Egyptian tombs for relics in their own and who also practiced human sacrifice as evidenced by the large number of female ritual burials. The conquering Hyksos inherited an Egypt brought to its knees, for the large-scale departure of the Hebrew slave work force from Goshen, meant a severely weakened economy. Added to this was the psychological blow of losing all the firstborn of Egypt, whether high born or low.
Josephus quoted Mantheo regarding the sudden destruction and ensuing Amalakite invasion: “In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods and treated all our natives with cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others.’
“Discovered by Ronn Wyatt in 1978. A pair of pillars on the Egyptian side (Nuweiba) and the Saudi side of the the Gulf of Aqaba – The Red Sea. The one on the Egyptian side had fallen over and was in the sea. It’s inscriptions had worn off. The one on the Saudi side was inscribed with the words: Yahweh, Pharaoh, Mizraim [refer Chapter XIV Mizra], Moses, Death, Water, Solomon, Edom. The Saudi pillar has been removed by the Saudi’s but the one on the Nuweiba side is… standing and can be visited.”
The Ten Plagues of Egypt are recorded outside of the Biblical account. The Tempest Stele: “[Then] the gods [made] the sky come in a storm of r[ain, with dark]ness in the western region and the sky beclouded without [stop, loud]er than [the sound of] the subjects, strong[er than …, howling(?)] on the hills more than the sound of the cavern in Elephantine. Then every house and every habitation they reached [perished and those in them died, their corpses] floating on the water like skiffs of papyrus, (even) in the doorway and the private apartments (of the palace), for a period of up to […] days, while no torch could give light over the Two Lands. Then His Incarnation said: How much greater is this… Hence the magic-practicing priests said to Pharaoh: than the impressive manifestation of the great god, than… It is the finger of God! the plans of the gods! Then His Incarnation commanded to make firm the temples that had fallen to ruin in this entire land: to make functional the monuments of the gods (…) to cause the processional images that were fallen to the ground to enter their shrines.”
The Admonitions of Ipuwer state: “[Nile] River is blood: Admonitions 2:6,10: pestilence is throughout the land, blood is everywhere (…) O, yet the [Nile] river is blood and one drinks from it; one pushes people aside, thirsting for water.
Hail and fire: Admonitions 2:10-11; 7:1: 0, yet porches, pillars and partition walls(?) are burnt, (but) the facade(?) of the King’s Estate (l.p.h.) is enduring and firm (…) For look, the fire is become higher.
Magic is ineffective: Admonitions 6:6-7: O, yet the sacred fore hall, its writings have been removed; the place of secrets and the sanctuary(?) have been stripped bare. O, yet magic is stripped bare; omens(?) and predictions(?) are made dangerous because of their being recalled by people.
Vegetation perished: Admonitions 4:14; 6:2-4: O, yet [t]rees are swept away, plantations laid bare (…) O, yet one eats(?) plants and one drinks down water. No meal or bird-plants can be found; seed is taken from the pig’s mouth. There is no bright face because of bowing down(?) before hunger. O, yet barley has perished everywhere (…) everyone says. ‘There is nothing!’ – the storehouse is razed.
Cattle perished: Admonitions 5:6: O, yet all herds, their hearts weep; cattle mourn because of the state of the land.
Disaster on the whole country: Admonitions 5:6; 6:4; 9:6; 10:4: Officials are hungry and homeless (…) everyone says: There is nothing! The storehouse is razed (…) Look, the strong of the land, they have note reported the state of the subjects, having come to ruin (…) The entire King’s Estate is without its revenues.
Darkness: Admonitions 9:11,14; 10:1: Wretches […] them(?); day does not dawn on it. Destroyed (…) be]hind a wall(?) in an office, and rooms containing falcons and rams(?) [… till] dawn. It is the commoner who will be vigilant; day dawns on him.
Death of the firstborn: Admonitions 2:6-7; 3:13-14; 5:6-7: there is no lack(?) of death; the (mummy)-binding speaks without approaching it. O, yet the many dead are buried in the river; the flood is a grave, while the tomb has become a flood (…) What may we do about it, since it has come to perishing? O, yet laughter has perished [and is no] longer done. It is mourning which is throughout the land mixed with lamentation (…) O, yet the children of officials are thrown against walls; children of prayer are placed on high ground. Khnum [god of fertility and connected with water – “father of the fathers” and represented as a ram with horizontal twisting horns, or a ram headed man] mourns because of his weariness. O, yet terror slays.
Pharaoh is fallen down: Admonitions 7:4: the Residence has fallen down in an hour. [Psalms 136:15: ‘And who shook off Pharaoh and his military force into the Red Sea’].
Egyptians stripped: Admonitions 2:4-5; 3:1-3: O, yet the poor have become the owners of riches; he who could not make for himself sandals is the owner of wealth (…) the outside bow-people have come to Egypt. O, yet [… Asiatics] reach [Egypt] and there are no people anywhere. O, yet gold, lapis lazuli, silver, turquoise, garnet, amethyst, diorite(?), our [fine stones(?),] have been hung on the neck(s) of maidservants; riches are throughout the land, (but) ladies of the house say: ‘Would that we had something we might eat!’”
Anne Habermehl writes: “All this had to have caused a total collapse of Egypt. That such a collapse did actually occur can be seen from a study of historical sources – in fact, secular historians believe that Egypt collapsed not once, but twice: once at the end of the 6th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (followed by the First Intermediate Period), and again at the end of the 12th Dynasty of the Middle Kingdom (followed by the Second Intermediate Period). Which collapse was precipitated by the Exodus? It is likely there was only one collapse, with the 6th and 12th Dynasties running concurrently and ending in chaos at the same time. Gardiner (1964, page 147) compares the traditional two intermediate periods with a very interesting description, and inadvertently backs the idea that these two periods were one:
‘… it will be well to note that the general pattern of these two dark periods is roughly the same. Both begin with a chaotic series of insignificant native rulers; in both, intruders from Palestine cast their shadow over the delta, and even into the Valley; and in both relief comes at last from a hardy race of Theban princes, who after quelling internal dissention expel the foreigner and usher in a new epoch of immense power and prosperity.’
“Secular scholars apparently believe that the same strange series of events happened in Egyptian history twice and do not consider the statistical improbability of this. The collapse of the Old Kingdom at the end of the 6th Dynasty appears to be the big event to most Egyptologists. Erman (1966, page 93), says that at the end of the 6th Dynasty ‘Egypt is suddenly blotted out from our sight in obscurity, as if some great catastrophe had overwhelmed it.’ Both historians and scientists continue to wonder exactly what caused this collapse, and to offer theories. To a Bible believer, it is amazing how the events leading up to the Exodus, and the Exodus itself, are basically invisible to secular historians.”
It was 430 years from Abraham’s 100th year, when he was 99 years old to the Exodus [Exodus 12:40-41, Genesis 17:1-13, Galatians 3:15-17]. The count of 400 years as per Genesis 15:13-14 and Acts 7:6-7 was the 130th year of Abraham and the 30th of Isaac in 1847 BCE. An online comment confirms: “Thus, all one has to do is to add 430 years to Abraham’s year [100] and there is a grand total of [530] years from Abraham’s birth [1977 BCE] to the Exodus [1446 BCE]. Then add [45] years to the time that Joshua divided the land of the Amorites [1406 to 1400 BCE] (Joshua 14:7-10) and the number 575 is reached from Abraham’s birth. But remember that Abraham lived to be 175 years of age (Genesis 25:7). So, one simply needs to subtract 175 from 575 and we arrive at exactly 400 years from Abraham’s death [1802 BCE] and the year when the sins of the Amorites reached maturity [1402/1 BCE]. This means that both the “400 years” in Genesis 15:13 are literal (to the very year), but that also the “430 years” of Moses (Exodus 12:40,41) and referred to by the apostle Paul (Galatians 3:14-19) are literal (to the very year).”
There is confusion to when the 430 years applies as the Bible indicates the whole period lasted from entry into Egypt by Jacob and the exit of the Israelites during the Exodus. Jacob came to Egypt with his family in 1687 BCE and so the Exodus was 240 years later in 1446 BCE.
The issue is that modern translations are based on the Masoretic text which dates from the 4th Century CE. Older manuscripts agree that the 430 years begins with Abraham’s arrival in Canaan and not Jacob’s move to Egypt.
David Reagan states: “The three older sources are The Septuagint (the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in about 280 BC), the writings of Josephus (who quotes the verse in his First Century AD writings, stating that he is quoting from Temple documents), and The Samaritan Version of the Torah (which dates from the 2nd Century AD). The Septuagint version reads as follows: “And the sojourning of the children of Israel, that is which they sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years.” Josephus, in his Antiquities of the Jews (Chapter XV:2) puts it this way: “They (the Israelites) left Egypt in the month of Xanthiens, on the fifteenth day of the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather Abraham came into Canaan…”It appears that in the compilation of the Masoretic text, the phrase “and in the land of Canaan” was dropped either because of a scribal error or because of an exercise in interpretation.”
An article entitled: The Dynasty of Moses and the Queen of Sheba, by Hope of Israel Ministries, provides fascinating details of an amazing forerunner romance that preceded Solomon and the Queen of Sheba – capitalisation theirs, emphasis & bold mine:
‘In the book of Deuteronomy… God made Moses an amazing promise. After Israel had sinned, and made a golden calf to worship, Yehovah was furious. He declared to Moses: “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation MIGHTIER AND GREATER THAN THEY” (Deuteronomy 9:13-14). Moses, however, interceded for the people, and turned away… God’s wrath from them (verses 18-19, 22-29).
However, prior to Moses leaving Egypt, the Jewish historian Josephus points out that he had been a great general who led Pharaoh’s army to victory over the kingdom of Ethiopia, which had conquered most of Egypt. While attacking the Ethiopian capital city, Tharbis, the daughter of the king of Ethiopia, became enamoured of Moses, seeing his valiant exploits, and bargained to deliver the city into his hands if he would but marry her. Moses agreed, and she fulfilled her promise – and Moses married her, and fulfilled the obligation of a husband to her, causing her to become pregnant (Josephus, Antiquities, II, x). This occurred sometime before 1532 B.C., when Moses was driven out of Egypt for slaying an Egyptian (Exodus 2: 11-15). The vitally important royal city where this conflict culminated was “Saba.” Josephus relates:’
Moses will be a subject of study in another chapter. Accordingly, Moses was born slightly later than the article proposes, in 1526 BCE. Moses fled from Egypt at forty years of age in 1486 BCE. His campaign in Cush would have been circa 1506 – 1496 BCE.
‘”…he came upon the Ethiopians before they expected him; and, joining battle with them, he beat them, and deprived them of the hopes they had of success against the Egyptians, and went on in overthrowing their cities, and indeed made a great slaughter of these Ethiopians… the Ethiopians were in danger of being reduced to slavery, and all sorts of destruction; and at length they retired to SABA, which was a royal city of Ethiopia, which Cambyses afterward named MEROE, after the name of his own sister. The place was to be beseiged with very great difficulty, since it was both encompassed by the Nile quite round, and the other rivers…” (Ant., II, X, 2).
The Greek historian Herodotus spoke of Meroe, or Saba, as “…a great city, the name of which is MEROE. This city is said to be the mother of all Ethiopia” (The History, p.142-143, quoted in The Sign and the Seal, p. 448).
When Egyptian history is properly restored and reconstructed, this event means that Moses’ son by Queen Tharbis became the progenitor of a line of Ethiopian kings. When Israel left Egypt in 1492 B.C., [1446 BCE] the land of Egypt was in a shambles – utterly destroyed, as the Papyrus Ipuwer states with awesome clarity in describing the plagues which fell upon that land – including the plague of blood. The papyrus also shows that invaders from the east, the Hyksos, conquered northern Egypt (lower Egypt) and dominated the region as cruel “shepherd kings” for about 500 years. These “Hyksos” were the Amalekites who fought the children of Israel in Sinai as they left Egypt (Exodus 18). They were not thrown out of Egypt until the reign of king Saul of Israel, who conquered the Amalekites in Arabia (I Samuel 15), and Samuel the prophet slew their king Agag (vs. 32-33).
At this same time, the famous and powerful Eighteenth Dynasty arose in southern Egypt and Ethiopia – a dynasty of dark-skinned kings and queens! Among the famous kings of this powerful dynasty, which overthrew the Hyksos and conquered northern (lower) Egypt, Immanuel Velikovsky writes in Ages in Chaos: “The kingdom of Egypt, after regaining independence under AHMOSE, a contemporary of Saul, also achieved grandeur and glory under Amenhotep I, THUTMOSE I, Hatshepsut, and THUTMOSE III. Egypt, devastated and destitute in the centuries under the rule of the Hyksos, rapidly grew in riches” (p. 103).
Notice the strange sounding names of this line of kings from southern Egypt and Ethiopia — they contain the name of their ancestor, who was none other than the Biblical MOSES! Why would Egyptian kings of the most powerful dynasty that ever ruled Egypt be called by the name of Moses, and be named after Moses? Because this dynasty of kings and queens was descended from Tharbis, who became Queen of Ethiopia, and her husband was none other than Moses!‘
The first Pharaoh to incorporate moses as part of his name was a Pharaoh during the period of the Exodus, Pharaoh Dudimose I who reigned 1450 – 1446 BCE. Though he was contemporaneous with Moses, he was not the Pharaoh of the Exodus as we shall discover. Some commentators have stated ‘moses’ is a title or rank rather than a personal name, so as to minimise or eliminate Moses from Egypt’s historical record. It is very possible it became a title during and after the famous Moses had left his mark on Egyptian history.
‘As Josephus writes, after she delivered up the impregnable city of Saba to Moses, “No sooner was the agreement made, but it took effect immediately; and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land” (Ant., II, x, 2).
Notice! The royal city where this marriage was consummated was “Saba.” Saba can be none other than the same as Sheba! Thus, the Queen of Sheba, whom Josephus says was the Queen of Ethiopia and Egypt, who visited Solomon in 992 B.C., [rather between 970 – 930 BCE] roughly 540 years after Moses married the Ethiopian princess, came from this same royal city of Saba-Sheba. This means that she was a royal descendant of Moses and Tharbis, the daughter of the king of Ethiopia — a descendant of Moses!
… God fulfilled his promise to make a powerful dynasty of kings from the loins of Moses. And in the days of Solomon, the Queen of Sheba – Hatshepsut [ruled Egypt 960 to 945 BCE], her Egyptian name, or Makeda, her Ethiopian name – like Tharbis, her ancestor, had a love affair or romance with a Hebrew leader – King Solomon. Thereby the royal lines of Moses [Tribe of Levi] and David [Tribe of Judah] became intertwined,and have ruled in the nation of Ethiopia [people of Cush] ever since…
The very name “Hatshepsut” itself may be indicative of the fact that this famous Queen, who visited the land of Punt, the “Divine Land,” and who built a temple on the banks of the Nile at Thebes in upper Egypt patterned after Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, was indeed the Queen of Sheba. “Ha,” in Hebrew, means “the.” “Sut is a suffix which may relate to royalty. Thus her actual name is “Shep,”but nominatives are often interchangeable, and it could be rendered “Sheb,” that is, SHEBA — thus her very name could mean, “The Sheba Queen,” or “The Queen of Sheba.”
Interestingly, historians know that the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, at its most powerful, was a [black] dynasty – that is, Ethiopian or Nubian! On page 105 of his book Ages in Chaos, Velikovsky has a plate showing the visage of Queen Hatshepsut, courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is a regal looking statue showing her distinctive Ethiopian features, or a mixture of Ethiopian and Semitic – but of course, for she was the descendant of Tharbis and Moses!
Was Hatshepsut the same person as the Queen of Sheba, or the Queen of Ethiopia, as Josephus states clearly that the Queen of Sheba was? The Ethiopian name of this Queen, who visited Solomon and had a son by him, was Makeda. Did Hatshepsut have this as her personal name? Velikovsky quotes the Karnak obelisk, in Breasted, Records, volume II, section 325, in its description of the famous Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut: “Thy name reaches as far as the circuit of heaven, the fame of MAKERE (Hatshepsut) encircles the sea” (Ages in Chaos, p. 105).
Makere is clearly the same name as Makeda, the Ethiopian name for the Queen of Sheba or Saba. The term “Sheba” or “Saba” refers to the name of the famous Ethiopian royal city at the confluence of the Nile and two other Ethiopian rivers, at the upper reaches of the Nile! The word “Ethiopia” is a Greek word meaning “burnt faces.” The Hebrew word Cush, translated as “Ethiopia,” was used in Biblical times to refer to “the entire Nile Valley south of Egypt, including Nubia and Abyssinia” (Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, p. 5, quoted in The Sign and the Seal, p. 450).
The 1955 Revised Constitution of Ethiopia confirms the age-old monarchy’s Divine Right to rule. It states: “The Imperial dignity shall remain perpetually attached to the line of Haile Selassie I, whose line descends without interruption from the dynasty of Menelik I, son of the Queen of Ethiopia, the Queen of Sheba, and King Solomon of Jerusalem…” (ibid., p. 24). Haile Selassie, the former Emperor of Ethiopia, claimed to be the 225th direct line descendant of Menelik I, the son of the Queen of Sheba or Saba, the royal city and “mother” city of all Ethiopia. Thus her Biblical name, “Queen of Sheba,” actually helps to prove her true identity!’
The above lineage claim of Haile Selassie of the nation of Ethiopia, is included for interest. If Moses’s first wife was from Cush, then it is not such a random act for Moses to later take a Cushite woman as his third wife.
Was Hatshepsut the Queen of Sheba – or Merely the Queen of Theba? By Emmet Sweeney – emphasis & bold mine:
‘In the Old Testament she is named simply “Queen of Sheba,” but in the Gospel of Matthew [12.42] she is called “Queen of the South”. Both these titles point directly to Egypt.
In the Book of Daniel the Ptolemaic pharaoh is named “King of the South” on several occasions. It may be that this was not the most common biblical designation for the Egyptian ruler, but its occurrence in Daniel, without any explanatory comments, proves beyond question that it was a commonly-used expression. And the king of the south shall be strong … and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north … and shall also carry captives into Egypt … So the king of the south shall come into his own kingdom and return to his own land (Daniel 11, v. 5-9).
It should be noted that the Book of Daniel is generally dated to the first century BC, whilst the Gospel of Matthew seems to have been written in the third quarter of the first century AD. Evidently, during this century or two, “monarch of the south” was an accepted term for the Egyptian ruler… Hatshepsut was… very definitely a Queen of the South. She was also, as we shall now see, a Queen of Sheba.
The capital of Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty was the mighty city of Thebes. Modern Egyptologists still use this name, which is derived from the Greeks.
Where the Greeks got it has always been a mystery, since the native name of the metropolis, in the hieroglyphs, is read as Wa-se or Wa-she (actually, the glyphs used are that of the scepter – written as Uas-t by Budge – and that of a plant and an arm – written as Shema or Sh-a by Budge: thus Uas-sha or Was-sha).
… Lisa Liel of Israel, an authority on both hieroglyphic and cuneiform scripts, pointed out to me that in her opinion the word should be read as Se-wa or She-wa, since the spellings of hieroglyphic names vary and in addition are often written not precisely as they should be pronounced. In fact, spellings often had more to do with aesthetics or religious sentiment than with strict phonetics. Thus the name Tutankhamen is actually written as Amen-tutankh (since the god’s name had to come first) and the names of the Senwosret pharaohs of the Twelfth Dynasty appear in the hieroglyphs as Wsr-t-sn. One might also note that various pharaohs whose names are made up of the elements Ka-nefer-reare alternately named Nefer-ka-ra (in actual fact the name appears in the hieroglyphs normally as Ra-nefer-ka).
Now, if Thebes’ Egyptian name is really Shewa (Sheba) then a whole host of hitherto mysterious facts become comprehensible. First and foremost, we now know where the Greeks got the word Thebes (Theba). A normal linguistic mutation (lisping) turns “s” or “sh” into “th.” Thus for example the Persians called Assyria, Athuria. Secondly, we know why Josephus called the capital of Ethiopia (i.e. Upper Egypt/Nubia) by the name Saba or Shaba. Finally, we understand the significance of the name of another cult shrine of the god Amon – the oasis of Siwa.
Thus the two titles by which the Queen of Sheba is known in the biblical story clearly identify her as a queen of Egypt. Yet the connection between Egypt and the terms Queen of Sheba and Queen of the South still however leaves us with the question: Why did the biblical authors prefer these terms to “Egypt”? One possible answer, which may or may not be of value, is that the Jewish chroniclers were keenly aware of the Nubian (ie “Ethiopian”) origin of the Eighteenth Dynasty. To call the Queen of Sheba an Egyptian would thus, perhaps, have been (in their minds at least) a slight inaccuracy.
We recall here that a generation or so after the time of Solomon, Israel was attacked by an “Ethiopian” ruler named Zerah. Everyone, even mainstream scholars, agree that this “Ethiopian” king was an Egyptian pharaoh (he is said to have brought an army of Libyans and Ethiopians against Israel), and the present writer agrees with Velikovsky in identifying this man with Amenhotep II [7th king of the 18th Dynasty 912-887 BCE] — a man whose Nubian ethnic identity is very clear in the portrayals of him that have survived.‘
There are scholars and commentators that refute Hatshephut as being the same person as the Queen of Sheba and the Biblical narrative as authentic; but in so doing, do not provide a viable, believable or provable alternative.
Some researchers and commentators have made a link from Edomite king Job-ab with the Patriarch Job in the bible. If such is the case, then Job is the most famous Edomite in the Bible after Esau himself.
Job has forty-two chapters dedicated to the story of his righteousness – one of the three most righteous men listed in the Bible [Ezekiel 14;14], with the antediluvian Patriarch Noah and the Prophet Daniel – and his subsequent testing by the Adversary, with the Eternal’s agreement. The written structure of the book of Job is unusual, in that it combines prose and poetry. No other book in the Bible uses this ‘prose-poetry-prose pattern.’ Job is considered the most ancient book in the Bible [Job 19:23]. In addition to its profound biblical message it is regarded as a literary masterpiece. The book contains dialogue between Job and his four friends as well as Job’s conversations with the Creator. There is much wisdom to glean as well as valuable information regarding the pre-Adamic or angelic world, particularly impressive creatures such as Leviathan and the Behemoth – ostensibly dinosaurs and allegorically, angelic beings.
The Book of Job: Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence, Gerard Gertoux, 2015:
‘Many people who think themselves wise assume that Job was a fictional character like the Good Samaritan, a parable to teach morals. This assumption is illogical and even absurd. Indeed, what is the importance of knowing many insignificant details… [about his life] (Job 42:9-14)… If the Book of Job was a parable Satan would have persecuted a fictional character. Those who suppose that Satan must be the principle of evil lead to an absurdity because in that case God would[n’t] have discussed with “it”… [the details regarding Job’s character] (Job 1:8-10).’
The name Jobab means ‘to call’ or ‘cry shrilly’ from the verb yabab, whereas Job means ‘returning enemy’ or ‘the persecuted.’ Job was blessed greatly after his trial, with much more than all he possessed before his series of vicissitudes.
Job 42:10-17
Common English Bible
10 Then the Lord changed Job’s fortune when he prayed for his friends, and the Lord doubled* all Job’s earlier possessions. 11 All his brothers, sisters, and acquaintances came to him and ate food with him in his house. They comforted and consoled him concerning all the disaster the Lord had brought on him, and each one gave him a qesitah [an amount of money: value not known] and a gold ring. 12 Then the Lord blessed Job’s latter days more than his former ones. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, one thousand yoke of oxen, and one thousand female donkeys… 16 After this, Job lived 140 years*and saw four generations of his children [4 x 35 years]. 17 Then Job died, old [210 years old]and satisfied.
In the Jewish Encyclopedia, “Jose B. Ḥalafta [states] that Job was born when Jacob and his children entered Egypt and that he died when the Israelites left that country.” This equals two hundred and forty-one years. It would place Job’s testing around 1587 BCE at the age of one hundred and his birth in 1687 BCE. This scenario fits, though a marriage to second wife Dinah does not work – to be discussed later – and how did Job live a staggering one hundred years longer than any one else of his generation?
The orthodox view maintains that the Book of Job belongs to the era before the Exodus and if Eliphaz is linked rather to Ishmael – as a Tema-nite – and not Esau’s son by the same name, then the patriarch Job lived sometime between the time of Ishmael, who died in 1754 BCE and the children of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt in 1446 BCE. Saying that, Esau’s grandson would have been born circa 1725 BCE and sits convincingly in the same time frame.
Chuck Swindoll says regarding Job:“Though we cannot be certain, Job may have lived during the time of Jacob or shortly thereafter.” A chronology based on Job living seventy years, then receiving an additional one hundred and forty, would mean that he lived after Jacob. Jacob died in 1670 BCE and Job would have been born fourteen years later in 1656 BCE – the beginning of Jobab’s reign as king of Edom for ten years. This suggests that Jobab and Job were two different people.
If Job lived one hundred and forty years after his testing, being blessed doubly, then his age at his testing in 1586 BCE, would have been seventy. Job living to two hundred and ten* would have been a very special blessing and reward, as he was afforded an extra seventy years or so on top of what people were usually living at that time; about one hundred to one hundred and forty years. Job’s death in 1446 BCE, would indicate he would have known the Israelites had been freed, for he ‘died satisfied.’ His birth would have been some forty years after Jacob’s family entered Egypt and when Joseph was seventy years old and had been Vizier for forty years.
Moslem tradition posits that after his father died, Job journeyed to Egypt to marry Rahme or Rahma, the daughter of Ephraim – or possibly Manasseh according to some sources – ‘who had inherited from her grandfather Joseph his beautiful robe [of many colours].’ The chronology supports this scenario, as a daughter being born circa 1660 BCE is likely and would mean she was the same age as Job when they married – circa 1615 BCE, a year after Joseph’s death – and would have time to have ten children by 1586 BCE.
Job 1:1-22
Amplified Bible
There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job;and that man was blameless andupright,and one who feared God (with reverence) and abstained from and turned away from evil (because he honored God).
2 Seven sons and three daughters were born to him. 3 He also possessed 7,000 sheep, 3,000 camels, 500 yoke (pairs) of oxen, 500 female donkeys*, and a very great number of servants, so that this man was the greatest [and wealthiest and most respected] of all the men ofthe east.
To be located in the east, means Job may not have been an Edomite or living in the land of Uz associated with Seir [Genesis 36:28]. The alternatives for the location of Uz include a son of Aram called Uz and a son of Nahor [Genesis 10:23; 22:21]. Both equate to some admixture and as the peoples of northern and central Italy today [refer Chapter XXV Italy: Nahor & the Chaldeans]. This writer considers it a distinct possibility that Job is from, or could be an ancestor of, an Italian lineage as opposed to a Jewish one. We will compare the evidence as we progress.
4 His sons used to go (in turn) and feast in the house of each one on his day, and they would send word and invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When the days of their feasting were over, Job would send (for them) and consecrate [H6942 to set apart, to be holy] them, rising early in the morning and offering burnt [sin] offerings according to the number of them all; for Job said, “It may be that my sons have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” Job did this at all (such) times.
It has been inferred by some that ‘on his day’ refers to Job’s birthday or the son’s birthdays and that his day was a special occasion; but the Hebrew wording indicates, that his refers to each of the brothers in turn. As there were seven of them, it follows that they likely held a banquet every day of the week, rotating from house to house, as indicated in verse five. This is evidence of the brothers’ prosperity, as well as the close relationship they maintained with one another. Job’s concern for them and offering sacrifices on their behalf could mean the brothers were debauched in their carousing and leading their sisters astray. Or more likely from the context, that the sons were righteous, as Job could only consecrate or sanctify someone holy. The fact that Job is offering sacrifices on their behalf and not his own, would indicate that he was a priest. If so, Job would have been a priest of the Most High, of the Order of Melchizedek. Perhaps ‘a man in the land of Uz’ is an inspiration for the film The Wizard of Oz or the poem Ozymandias by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
The support for Job being a priest of note is found in the Book of Jasher, where the Pharaoh of Egypt summoned his two counsellors, Reuel the Midianite and Job the Uzite – ‘from Mespotamia, in the land of Uz.’ When studying Abraham’s son Midian we looked at Moses’s father-in-law Jethro and his status as a High Priest and possibly one of three priests acquainted with the Pharaoh, including Job and Balaam. Recall that Reuel is Jethro’s last or family name from his father and Jethro his priestly name [refer Chapter XXVII Abraham & Keturah – Benelux & Scandinavia]. Notice that the reference to Uz is in Mesopotamia and not Edom, Canaan or Arabia. This lends support towards the Uz from either Aram or Nahor.
It is worth noting, that support for Job living east of Edom, is the fact that the prophet Balaam was from a city called Pethor [Numbers 22:5; Deuteronomy 23:4].
Numbers 23:7
Amplified Bible
Balaam took up his (first) discourse (oracle) and said: “Balak, the king of Moab, has brought me from Aram (Syria), from the mountains of the east…
Balaam lived in the east and he was from Aram. Now the city of Pethor was situated in northern Mesopotamia, on the banks of the Euphrates River. In the region we have discussed when studying Nahor, the very area known as Aram-Naharaim discussed in Chapter XXV. Jethro from Midian, lived in the east, in the north of the Arabian Peninsula, east of Egypt and south of Canaan. Balaam from Aram-Nahar-[aim] lived in the east, in Mesopotamia, north of Canaan.
The time frame means that Jethro, Job and Moses were contemporaries towards the end of Job’s life, just as Job was with Joseph when he was younger. The fact Job visited Egypt and may have married Joseph’s grand daughter, means he must have surely met Imhotep the Vizier of Egypt [refer Appendix VI: Joseph & Imhotep – One man, different name?]. The later Pharaoh prior to the Exodus, apparently was not enamoured with Job’s counsel regarding the Israelite slaves and who could well have been Moses’s adopted father, Amenemhet III – who reigned from 1529 to 1484 BCE – the sixth king of the 12th Dynasty [refer Appendix VII Moses & the Exodus – Fabrication or Fact?].
The land of Uz may well have been a separate land unique in its connection with Edom – indications are that it could have been northerly in the Hauron Valley of Bashan in the Transjordan, or southerly on the Kings’s Road between Bozrah and Elath adjoining the Red Sea – and named after Seir’s great grandson Uz, the brother of Aran, also similar to the name Aram and the son of Dishan, who was in turn the son of Lotan.
As Job is not Jobab, then his descent from Edom is questionable. It hinges in part, on his four friends and their origins. We have already linked the Uz of Aram and Uz of Nahor as the modern Italians. Gether, another son of Aram is the ancestor of the Spanish [Chapter XXIII Aram & Tyre: Spain, Portugal & Brazil]. The link with Spain is through the Sephardic Jew, who were located in the Iberian Peninsula. Jews had a strong presence in Italy, as highlighted by William Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice. Lotan of Seir may have a connection with Lot’s sons Moab and Ammon, the modern day French. Could these links with Spain and France find an answer within the peoples nestled there, known as the Basque and Catalonians? [Chapter XXVI The French & Swiss: Moab, Ammon & Haran]
6 Now there was a day when the sons of God (angels) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan (adversary, accuser) also came among them.
7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Then Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming around on the earth and from walking around on it.” 8 The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered and reflected on My servant Job? For there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God [with reverence] and abstains from and turns away from evil[because he honors God].” 9 Then Satan answered the Lord, “Does Job fear God for nothing? 10 Have You not put a hedge [of protection]around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands [and conferred prosperity and happiness upon him], and his possessions have increased in the land. 11 But put forth Your hand now and touch (destroy) all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face.” 12Then the Lord said to Satan,“Behold, all that Job has is in your power, only do not put your hand on the man himself.”So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord.
The Creator barred the Adversary from actually killing Job, though all else was available to Satan in seeking to turn Job from his devotion to the Eternal. Satan did not understand Job’s heart; in thinking Job’s faithfulness was based on what the Creator had given or done for him. The Almighty though, seeks those who love and trust Him, regardless of what He does for them. Those individuals with that mindset will later be given all things, even though it is not that, that fires their passion for loyalty. one wonders, if Satan only ever loved the Almighty because of what they had been given. Thus their loyalty could be broken. Whereas Job’s faith, could be tested indefinitely and he would still remain steadfast. When the Creator says there is none like Job, this would have been in approximately 1586* BCE. Now Jacob died in 1670 BCE and all his sons with Levi being the last – died by 1611 BCE. Joseph had lived for the first forty years of Job’s life from 1656 to 1616 BCE and so the statement is immense; though stated thirty years after Joseph’s death and sixty years before Mose’s birth. We know that Joseph pleased the Eternal and was richly blessed.
Genesis 41:38
English Standard Version
And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?”
Hebrews 11:22
English Standard Version
By faith Joseph, at the end of his life, made mention of the exodus of the Israelites and gave directions concerning his bones.
13 Now there was a day when Job’s sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, 14 and [1] a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were feeding beside them, 15 and the Sabeans [terrorising robbers from SW Arabia] attacked and swooped down on them and took away the animals. They also killed the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.” 16 While he was still speaking, [2] another [messenger] also came and said, “The fire of God (lightning) has fallen from the heavens and has burned up the sheep and the servants and consumed them, and I alone have escaped to tell you.” 17 While he was still speaking, [3] another (messenger) also came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three bands and made a raid on the camels and have taken them away and have killed the servants with the edge of the sword, and I alone have escaped to tell you.” 18 While he was still speaking, [4] another [messenger] also came and said, “Your sons and your daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, 19 and suddenly, a great wind came from across the desert,and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people and they died, and I alone have escaped to tell you.
The dramatic succession of the loss of Job’s possessions and family, quickly turned from the sublime to the ridiculous… with the such seemingly coincidental catalogue of strange disasters to afflict Job. It is not clear who the Sabeans were. They could at a stretch be the Seba and Sheba from Cush [Chapter XIII India & Pakistan: Cush & Phut]. Geographically closer and far more likely – due to the reference to the Chaldeans – they are either Sheba from Joktan or Sheba of Jokshan, the son of Abraham [refer Chapter XXIV Arphaxad & Joktan: Balts, Slavs & the Balkans and Chapter XXVII Abraham & Keturah – Benelux & Scandinavia]. Sheba, son of Joktan would be my preferred guess, who would equate to the Romanians today. Coincidently, Ophir another son of Joktan and brother of Sheba, is mentioned in Job 22:24. The reference to the Chaldeans is important, for if Job was descended from Uz of Nahor, then Job would be a Chaldean himself. Why would his own people be attacking him. Yet, this is not a valid reason as some of the worst atrocities are committed by family members against each other.
The fact Job’s sons and daughters are described as young, fits with what we know already about Job and his Ephraimite wife, Uzit. Recall, Isaac was described as young when he was thirty years old. Job and his wife would have married circa 1615 BCE and their ten children would have been born somewhere between 1615 to 1595 BCE. Thus, the eldest at the time of their deaths would have been about twenty-nine and the youngest between nineteen and perhaps twelve*. It would explain how all the children had inheritances and the sons, their own dwellings; particularly as Job was a wealthy ruler, the equivalent of a king.
Job 29:1-25
English Standard Version
2 “Oh, that I were as in the months of old… 7 When I went out to the gate of the city, when I prepared my seat in the square [similar with Lot, Genesis 19;1], 8 the young men saw me and withdrew, and the aged rose and stood; 9 the princes refrained from talking and laid their hand on their mouth; 10 the voice of the nobles was hushed, and their tongue stuck to the roof of their mouth… 12 because I delivered the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to help him. 14 I put on righteousness, and it clothed me; my justice was like a robe and a turban. 16 I was a father to the needy, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know. 21 “Men listened to me and waited and kept silence for my counsel. 22 After I spoke they did not speak again, and my word dropped upon them. 23 They waited for me as for the rain… 25 I chose their way and sat as chief, and I lived like a king among his troops, like one who comforts mourners.
20 Then Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head (in mourning for the children), and he fell to the ground and worshiped (God). 21 He said “Naked (without possessions) I came (into this world) from my mother’s womb, And naked I will return there. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away; Blessed be the name of the Lord.” 22 Through all this Job did not sin nor did he blame God.
Job 2:1-13
Amplified Bible
Again there was a day when the sons of God (angels) came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan (adversary, accuser) also came among them to present himself [H3320 – yatsab: ‘set, stand’ or ‘station oneself, present oneself’] before the Lord. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Then Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming around on the earth and from walking around on it.” 3 The Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered and reflected on My servant Job? For there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God [with reverence] and abstains from and turns away from evil [because he honors God]. And still he maintains and holds tightly to his integrity, although you incited Me against him to destroy him without cause.” 4 Satan answered the Lord, “Skin for skin! Yes, a man will give all he has for his life. 5 But put forth Your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh [and severely afflict him];and he will curse You to Your face.”6So the Lord said to Satan, “Behold, he is in your hand, only spare his life.”
The Amplified Bible says regarding verse four, one possible meaning is that ‘according to Satan, Job would be willing to give up his wife (his remaining loved one) to save his own life, thus surrendering his integrity (verse 3). Another is that Satan is hypothetically offering to give up his own life if Job is actually willing to die for his integrity. In any case, this is a bluff on the Adversary’s part, probably to make what they really desire (verse 5) appear less drastic.’
7 So Satan departed from the presence of the Lord and struck Job with loathsome boils and agonizingly painful sores from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8 And Job took a piece of broken pottery with which to scrape himself, and he sat [down] among the ashes (rubbish heaps). 9 Then his wife said to him, “Do you still cling to your integrity [and your faith and trust in God, without blaming Him]? Curse God and die!”10 But he said to her, “You speak as one of the [spiritually] foolish women speaks [ignorant and oblivious to God’s will]. Shall we indeed accept (only) good from God and not (also) accept adversity and disaster?” In [spite of] all this Job did not sin with [words from] his lips.
The Septuagint states: “After taking an Arabian wife, he became father to a son whose name was Ennon. But he himself was the son… of his mother Bosorra (Bozra)…” Job’s wife does not appear to be led by the Holy Spirit in the same way as Job. She reminds one of Lot’s wife. Her lack of understanding is indicative of an unconverted mind. For she thinks that Job is placing precedence in his own righteousness and faith, rather than perceiving that Job is actually focusing foremost, on the the will of the Eternal. Islamic tradition calls Job’s wife Rahma and Jewish sources state her name as Uzit, [in the Greek Sitidos (Sitis)]. Sitis may have the same root as Satan in Hebrew or Sotah, meaning ‘unfaithful wife’ [Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega]. Uzit was Job’s first wife and is believed to have died during Job’s afflictions.
11 Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this adversity that had come upon him, each one came from his own place, [1] Eliphaz the Temanite [possibly ‘Eliphaz the one of Teman’ meaning ‘the man of Teman (city)’ rather than ‘Eliphaz the descendant of Teman’ or Eliphaz the Tema-nite of Ishamel], [2] Bildad the Shuhite, and [3] Zophar the Naamathite; for they had made an appointment together to come to sympathize with him and to comfort him. 12 When they looked from a distance and did not recognize him [because of his disfigurement], they raised their voices and wept; and each one tore his robe [in grief] and they threw dust over their heads toward the sky [in sorrow]. 13 So they sat down on the ground with Job for seven days and seven nights and no one spoke a word to him, for they saw that his pain was very great.
Eliphaz stated here, is assumed by most to be the son of Esau and Adah. Eliphaz had been taken captive by Joseph and according to the Book of Jasher, Eliphaz was a notable military leader and killed in Rameses, Egypt at the age of eighty-three. If he was born approximately when Esau married Adah, in circa 1777 BCE and died in 1694 BCE; he was not alive in 1586 BCE when Job was afflicted. Therefore, this Eliphaz is a different person, though could still be a descendant of Eliphaz via his son Teman and a potential cousin of Job. Edom and by extension Teman in the Bible are described as ‘wise men’ with ‘understanding’ which is an apt description, of the Jewish intelligentsia [Obadiah 1:8-9].
There remains the argument, that this Eliphaz is descended from Tema, a son of Ishmael. Thus the Temanite description could actually be a reference to Tema and not Teman. Later in the Book of Job, Tema is mentioned with a Sheba. From the context, most likely Sheba the nephew of Midian; though Sheba of Joktan cannot be ruled out.
Job 6:19
English Standard Version
The caravans of Tema look, the [travellers] of Sheba hope.
There is a scripture in Job which alludes to Eliphaz possibly being old when he speaks with Job. It is Job’s father who is referenced and Eliphaz measures his own age with other men who are older even than Job’s father.
Job 15:9-10
English Standard Version
9 What do you know that we do not know? What do you understand that is not clear to us? 10 Both the gray-haired and the aged are among us, older than your father.
Bildad is humorously regarded as the shortest man in the Bible, as he is only a ‘shoe height’ [Shu-hite]. The Shuhites are considered descendants of Shuah, the sixth and youngest son of Abraham and Keturah and the ancestor of the Swedes.
Zophar in the Septuagint LXX: Sophar, meaning ‘to chirp’ or ‘to leap’, the Naamathite, meaning ‘sweet, pleasant’ is proposed by a number of sources as the king of the Minaeans in Arabia – possibly a link with Abraham’s children by Keturah. He is also linked with Eliphaz’s son Zepho or Zephi, grandson of Esau.
Recall, Zepho – meaning ‘watch’ or ‘gaze’ – had also been taken prisoner by Joseph at the time of Esau’s death during the battle of the burial of Jacob in 1670 BCE. It is possible that if it is Zepho, he was still alive and approximately one hundred and forty. There was a town in the land of Judah called Naamah [Joshua 15:41]. Possibly the hometown of Zophar the Naamathite?
We are left with the following two options for Job’s three locutionary friends being an Ishmaelite, a Shuite from Shuah and let’s say a Naamathite from Judah; or alternatively, three Edomites. Either way it does not prove that Job was or wasn’t an Edomite. Though the various references throughout, to Arabia and the east, favours the first option and therefore points towards Job having a closer tie with the Uz from Nahor or Aram rather than the Uz of Seir and Edom.
Later in the Book, there is a fourth friend of Job who becomes exasperated with the other three, mentioned in Job chapter thirty-two, Elihu the Buzite: descended from Buz, the brother of Uz, the son of Nahor [Genesis 22;21].
Job 32:1-10
The Message
1-5 Job’s three friends now fell silent. They were talked out, stymied because Job wouldn’t budge an inch – wouldn’t admit to an ounce of guilt [because he was righteous in his own eyes]. Then Elihu lost his temper. (Elihu was the son of Barakel the Buzite from the clan of [A]Ram.) He blazed out in anger against Job for pitting his righteousness [justifying himself] against God’s [as if God was in the wrong].He was also angry with the three friends because they had neither come up with an answer nor proved Job wrong [even though they had declared Job to be in the wrong].
Job 32:2-3
Living Bible
Then Elihu… became angry because Job refused to admit he had sinned and to acknowledge that God had just cause for punishing him. 3 But he was also angry with Job’s three friends because they had been unable to answer Job’s arguments and yet had condemned him.
Elihu had waited with Job while they spoke because they were all older than he. But when he saw that the three other men had exhausted their arguments, he exploded with pent-up anger.
6-10 This is what Elihu, son of Barakel the Buzite, said: “I’m a young man, and you are all old and experienced. That’s why I kept quiet and held back from joining the discussion.I kept thinking, ‘Experience will tell. The longer you live, the wiser you become.’ But I see I was wrong – it’s God’s Spirit in a person, the breath of the Almighty One, that makes wise human insight possible. The experts have no corner on wisdom; getting old doesn’t guarantee good sense. So I’ve decided to speak up. Listen well! I’m going to tell you exactly what I think.
Elihu’s lineage as a Chaldean, lends considerable support for Job being of the same extraction. Elihu clearly sees Job’s predicament better than his other friends and grasps the trial Job is going through. Is this a clue to Job being a Chaldean descended from Nahor too? It is worth remembering that Job though not in the heart of Edomite territory, could have been on the periphery to the northeast or southeast even. Job had easy access to the Pharaoh in Egypt and this supports a southeastern Canaan location at the least. Plus, he was in striking distance of the Sabeans in Arabia and the Chaldean raiding parties from the north.
Job could well have migrated from southern Mespotamia, or even from Paddan-Aram or Haran, like Abraham. This might explain his status as a Priest and his acceptable sacrifices to the Eternal; in that he was not Aramean or Edomite, but rather descended from Abraham’s brother Nahor. A Chaldean who was related to his cousins Bethuel, Rebekah, Laban, Leah and Rachel. Bethuel being the eighth son and youngest brother of Uz the eldest and Buz the second born son of Nahor and Milcah – the sister of Sarah and eldest daughter of Haran. Once the friends begin speaking they start well enough, though soon descend into Uzit’s territory of mis-reading Job, his predicament and the Eternal’s involvement. Their words and his torment lead Job into a less than positive mindset. Even so, he refuses to blame the Almighty, but rather bemoans himself.
Job 3:1-4
Common English Bible
Afterward, Job spoke up and cursed the day he was born. 2 Job said: 3 Perish the day I was born, the night someone said, “A boy has been conceived.” 4 That day – let it be darkness; may God above ignore it, and light not shine on it.
Job 7:1-4
Common English Bible
Isn’t slavery everyone’s condition on earth, our days like those of a hired worker? 2 Like a slave we pant for a shadow, await our task like a hired worker.
3 So I have inherited months [or years] of emptiness; nights of toil have been measured out for me. 4 If I lie down and think – When will I get up? – night drags on, and restless thoughts fill me until dawn.
Job 14:5
Amplified Bible
“Since [mans] days are determined, The number of his months [years] is with You (in Your control), And You have made his limits [a death gene or accident] so he cannot pass (his allotted time) [Ecclesiastes 3:2, NIV: ‘… a time to be born and a time to die’].
Dark, poignant and timeless truths are expressed by Job. We are born into a flawed and decaying world. There is not much to celebrate. Being physical on this earth, means enduring bondage and slavery in a corrupt world, serving evil masters. We enter and exit this life, according to the Almighty’s will and the timing of His plan for us. When Job had endured the testing and trials sent to him for long enough and the Eternal recognised a humble change in an already righteous man, then he restored Job’s wealth and family. Sources record that Job’s second wife was in fact Jacob’s daughter and Zebulon’s twin, Dinah.
Dinah though, was born in 1741 BCE and marrying a seventy year old Job when Dinah was one hundred and fifty-five seems unreasonable. As Job, may have already married an Israelite, it is plausible he did so again; just as Jacob had married into Nahor’s family… Job was doing the reverse. A romantic solution, is that there is some truth in the record and that it was a descendant of Dinah – a great… granddaughter – who Job married.
The Creator doubled all of Job’s assets and wealth and restored the number of ten children he had previously. Curiously, the three daughters are named, though the sons are not.
Job 42:10-16
Common English Bible
10 Then the Lord changed Job’s fortune when he prayed for his friends… 12… the Lord blessed Job’s latter days more than his former ones… 13 He also had seven sons and three daughters. 14 He named one Jemimah [Dove], a second Keziah [Cinnamon, ‘ended’], andthe third Keren-happuch [Darkeyes (from mascara) or ‘radiate with beautiful eyes’]. 15 No women in all the land were as beautiful as Job’s daughters; and their father gave an inheritance to them along with their brothers [The message: Their father treated them as equals with their brothers, providing the same inheritance].
The fascinating reason Job’s daughters are named, while his sons are not, is that the daughters are clearly new born girls; whereas, the sons were not new; with no need to introduce them, as the same sons had returned, or simply: they had been resurrected. We are presented new daughters but not new sons. The sons names being omitted is not a mistake, but a clue. In Job chapter one we learned that Job’s sons were righteous. This is why Job offered sacrifices for them and how they could have been resurrected. For Satan took their lives without good cause. The Adversary killed them before their time, to spite Job. Job knew full well, that his children could be resurrected.
Job 33:28-30
The Message
28 But God stepped in and saved me from certain death. I’m alive again! Once more I see the light!’ 29-30 “This is the way God works. Over and over again He pulls our souls back from certain destruction so we’ll see the light – and live in the light!
Immeasurable joy must have filled Job to have his seven sons miraculously raised from the dead. The three original daughters had houses and an inheritance, but they were not inviting their brothers or being hospitable. The fact they were not resurrected implies they were not converted like their brothers.
The new daughters given to Job through his second wife Dinah, were given an inheritance like their half-brothers. Job’s replacement daughters were not like the first three. Job’s new daughters were the most fair and stunning women in that region of the world. The KJV says: “And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job…” The Hebrew word for fair or beautiful, is the same word used for Sarah, Rachel and Esther. King David is also described the same way, as is Joseph. It does mean beauty or handsomeness, though includes the description of one being fair in complexion. They are not described as ruddy or red like Esau and David; for the implication is that Sarah, Rachel, Esther, Joseph and Job’s three daughters, Jemimah, Keziah and Keren-happuch were blond and blue eyed. Whereas, Rebecca and Moses though beautiful, are not described as fair. Nor are Hagar, Keturah, Abraham, Isaac or Jacob.
Genesis 39:5-6
King James Version
5 And it came to pass from the time that he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the Lord blessed the Egyptian’s house for Joseph’s sake; and the blessing of the Lord was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field. 6 And he left all that he had in Joseph’s hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was a goodly [H8389, an attractive ‘figure or appearance’], person,and well favoured [H3303, fair, beautiful].
AMP: “… Now Joseph was handsome and attractive in form and appearance.” YLT: “… And Joseph is of a fair form [or well built], andof a fair appearance [or good-looking].”
The Book of Job – Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence, Gerard Gertoux, 2015:
‘Why does the Bible specify that God gave 140 years of extra life to Job? Only the context allows us to answer this question. According to the Talmud, Moses wrote the Book of Job (Baba Bathra 15a) and this information is very likely true for the following reasons: the writer of the Book of Job knew him intimately because he was able to give the names of his three daughters (Job 42:12-14) as well as the exact assessment of his cattle and herds, it can be assumed that he must have met him after his trial around 1640 BCE [1586 BCE]. When Moses (1613-1493) [1526-1406 BCE] came in Midian (from 1573 to 1533) [1486-1446] he had to have met Job (1710-1500) [1656-1446] who was around 137 years old [170 and Moses was 40 years of age] at that time. Job probably heard through Moses that the Israelites were under the yoke of Egypt (since 1748 BCE) [1593 BCE] and that he had tried to stop their oppression, but without success. In the same manner that Job saw the end [to] his suffering, he also saw the end of suffering for the Israelites, 33years before his death [in 1446 BCE].
If God had given him only 100 additional years, Job would not have been able to see this extraordinary deliverance. Similarly, Moses saw the Promised Land before he died (Deuteronomy 32:48-52) [in 1406 BCE, the year of his death].’
Excerpt from Chapter XXIX Esau: The Thirteenth Tribe
Cush is the eldest son of Ham; having a close affinity with Phut, the third-born of Ham’s four sons. Five sons are attributed to Cush. Cush and Phut have historically been entwined and are mentioned numerous times together in the Bible; similar to what we have learned, regarding Magog, Tubal and Meshech in Chapter X, though with a twist.
Herman Hoeh continues his invaluable platform of research in Origin of the Nations – capitalisation his, emphasis & bold mine:
‘This puzzle is easily solved! Bordering on the Black Sea in the Colchis (near eastern Turkey today) lived in ancient times “dark-skinned people”, according to historians. This circumstance puzzled even the ancients who thought all black people ought to live in Africa! Black people living in what today is the Caucasus of Russia is merely a confirmation of the fact that civilization commenced with Nimrod, a black man, in Babylon (Genesis 10:8-10). His kingdom spread northward from Babel to this very region!’
Nimrod will form a separate study in a later chapter. His identity will be unravelled and the assumption he was Black will be questioned [refer Chapter XXI The Incredible Identity, Origin & Destiny of Nimrod].
‘When the Assyrians carried Egyptians and Ethiopians captive (Isaiah 20), many were undoubtedly planted in this very region where the remnants of Nimrod’s empire had long remained… These people practiced circumcision – just as the [Black] Aborigines of Australia do today! From this region a few hundred miles northwest of Babylon comes the [Black] race [Negritos and Melanesians] of Southeast Asia. In II Chronicles 12:3 we read of the Sukkiim who came out of Africa into Palestine. We hear no more of them in Africa. But Herodotus tells us that they journeyed to Colchis by the Black Sea… In this region we find the mention of Sukhum… and ofthe dark-skinned Sakai. They gave their name to the Caspian Sea, which the ancients called “Sikim”… A large province in India also is named Sikkim after them…
The Sakai are scattered throughout Southeast Asia. They journeyed with the sons of Gomer. One of the proofs that Gomer is in Asia, but not in Europe, is this fact that the [Black people] who lived in the land of Gomer near Babylon now live in Southeast Asia! In ancient Colchis also lived the Aeetas… Where are the Aeetas today?
In the Philippines where some of the sons of Gomer [rather, Javan] also are… The really important reason for knowing where these [Black] people journeyed is that they help us solve the riddle where the sons of Gomer are today!’
Australian Aborigine men
‘A most intriguing question is the origin of the [black African]… Part of the black race stems from Cush (Genesis 10:6). Cush means black in Hebrew (YOUNG’s CONCORDANCE). The word “Cush” is often translated into English by the word “Ethiopia”, but not all Cushites live in Ethiopia (an independent nation in East Africa). The Greeks called the children of Cush “Ethiopians”. That’s why we use the word in English.’
Australian Aborigine women
‘Cush first settled around ancient Babylon (Genesis 10:8-10). The children of Cush were the original Babylonians, not the Chaldeans who are in Southern Europe today.
From Babylon, Cush spread far and wide. Most of the black children of Cush migrated across central Arabia and around the southern coast of Arabia to East Africa. The Egyptians called East Africa, south of Syene, “Kosh”. The Chaldeans and the Assyrians called it “Kushu”… Not all Scriptures refer to the Cushite who settled in East Africa.’
Dravidian women
‘Cush also had sons who went east into Asia rather than Africa. Here is what Herodotus wrote: The Ethiopians from the sun-rise (for [there are] two kinds)… were marshalled with the Indians, and did not at all differ from [them] in appearance but only in their language, and their hair. For the eastern Ethiopians are straight-haired; but those of (Africa) have hair more curly than that of any other people [the Black African is a different line of Ham – refer Chapter XII Canaan & African]. These Ethiopians from Asia were accounted (almost the same as the Indian [of India])”(Polymnia, section 20).’
Dravidian men
‘The Brown people of South India and Ceylon [Sri Lanka] are the descendants of Cush! Historians call them Dravidians today. The ancients called them SIBAE…Their Bible name was Seba (Genesis 10:7). Josephus, the Jewish historian, recognized an eastern and a western Cush – one in Asia, the other in Africa (ANTIQUITIES. VI, 2). Herodotus calls them “Asiatic Ethiopians” (Thalia, section 94). The word translated”Ethiopia”, in Ezekiel 38:5 should be properly translated “Cush”. It refers primarily to the Asiatic Cush, India today.’
The Aborigines of Australia are related to the Negritos of South East Asia and they in turn with the Indians from India [refer Chapter VII Javan: Archipelago South east Asia & Polynesia]. The similarity of the Aborigine facial characteristics with the Dravidian peoples of Southern India and Sri Lanka is too palpable to ignore. Though the Black African is not descended from Cush but rather Canaan; the peoples from Southern India as explained by Dr Hoeh are descended from Cush. In fact, Cush’s sons have spread even further afield. Cush once lived in East Africa, though they are not there now. There is no east-west split of Cush today. This would make Bible verses confusing, not knowing which Cush is intended? Cush’s descendants were not the original Babylonians. The meaning of Cush has been problematic, regardless of Youngs Concordance definition as ‘black.’
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The origin of the name Cush is irretrievably obscure, and none of the translators have more to say about it than that it is related to Ethiopia, and having a dark countenance. The prophet Jeremiah rhetorically asks, “Can the Cushite change his skin?” (Jeremiah 13:23), which may or may not suggest that the Cushites were known for being black. Still, this says very little about the meaning of the name Cush. Klein’s Etymological dictionary of the Hebrew Language lists a word written similar to Ethiopia, meaning spindle (with poetic function of ‘horn’?) [the Horn of Africa, present day Ethiopia is southwards from where the descendants of Cush settled], but he gives no applications to try the word. The Septuagint translates this name with a compilation of derivatives of the Greek verb ‘to scorch,’ and noun ‘countenance’.
However, the Hebrew word for black is (sahar). The heth and rosh in this word are so dominant that the name Cush can hardly have come from it. Allowing this would link Cush to pretty much any other word that contains a shin. Like the word (yshsh; weak, impotent, aged) for instance, which makes a far more plausible candidate as a repeated letter often falls away and the yod alternates with the waw. In concert with the common Hebrew particle (ke; as if, like), the name would mean As If He Were Weak.
And then there is the root (yshh; meaning uncertain), which yields the noun (tushiya), meaning wisdom, sound knowledge, which would yield the meaning of Cush as As If He Were Getting Smarter… Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads A Black Countenance, Full Of Darkness, but also submits… “the etymology is most uncertain”. NOBSE Study Bible Name List simply reads Black.
Not only do we lack a clear definition for the name Cush, the word has caused editors confusion in translating Cush in the Bible. It is invariably translated as either Cush, Cushan, Cushim or Cushi – either with a capital C or K. The following article by Peter Unseth, details inadvertently attributing Biblical names to current political boundaries and the usage of the word Cush – emphasis & bold mine.
Hebrew Kush: Sudan, Ethiopia, or Where?
‘Some published sources have acknowledged that Biblical kush was in what is now Egypt and Sudan… [and] I have found no actual evidence that the Kingdom of Kush indeed ruled any parts of the territory in modern Ethiopia. Much of the translators’ tendency to translate kush by a term that has modern day political significance stems from the Septuagint’s use of the word Aithiopia. At the time the Septuagint was translated, this was indeed a correct Greek term to use in translating kush.
If kush is translated as “Ethiopia”, the question arises: “Ethiopia’s borders at which point in time?” But in the centuries and decades since such early translations as the KJV, the use of “Ethiopia” in translating kush into English has become less and less of a legitimate choice. Translators too often retained the word “Ethiopia”, overlooking the fact that there has been a change in what was referred to between the use of English “Ethiopia” in earlier centuries (when the English meaning of Ethiopia was very similar to that of Greek Aithiopia) and the word “Ethiopia” in common usage of 20th century English (and a number of the world’s languages).
… the kingdom of kush was not within the borders of present day Ethiopia, but rather within the borders of Sudan and Egypt.
So we must conclude that the use of “Ethiopia” in English translations (and other languages) today leads readers to the erroneous conclusion that the Biblical references were to people and places actually within the delineated borders of the present state of Ethiopia.
I have studied over 30 English translations, charting their translations of kush in 21 verses. Their choices were generally from one of four terms: ““kush”, “Ethiopia”, “Nubia”, “Sudan”… problems have resulted from kush being translated by a term that has present day political significance… ordinary readers have simply not understood the text correctly. They have assumed that the word referred to an area that coincided with the borders of a modern state. This confusion is increased when different versions use words referring to different states. My friend who grew up on the Ethiopian-Sudanese border was genuinely perplexed and wanted to know “Which country does the Bible refer to in Psalm 68:31, Ethiopia or Sudan?”
… Biblical prophecy has been applied to the wrong parts of the world as a result of terms with political significance.
Writers unduly influenced by translations have misunderstood the Biblical text and interpreted prophecies as applying to the present states of Ethiopia or Sudan. Writing about Biblical prophecy, Otis wrote “Persia [Elam], Ethiopia (Cush), Libya [Phut] … are all easily identifiable with modern nations”…
In summary, the Old Testament references to kush do not refer specifically or exclusively to the present states of Sudan, Ethiopia, or any other political entity in Africa, and should not be translated with terms that would refer to such political states. The word kush should be translated in a way that is faithful to the text and as clear as possible to the reader. This will generally mean that the word will have to be translated by different words or phrases, according to the particular context and language.’
The difficulty in translating Cush is removed when their identity is understood. Cush’s sons include a number of nations. The simplicity of the matter is that everywhere ‘Cush’ is stated, it can simply be replaced with India. Leaving Nimrod for now, the sons of Cush as given in Genesis 10:6-7 ESV are: Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabteca. Raamah had two sons and they are Sheba and Dedan.
Seba in Hebrew means: ‘Drunkard’, from the verb saba, ‘to imbibe’
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
‘There’s only one Seba in the Bible… (Genesis 10:7). There seems to be something secretive about this name. Neither BDB Theological Dictionary nor NOBSE Study Bible Name List dares to even hint at an interpretation. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names ignores any Hebrew words that may have to do with the name Seba and goes after an Arabic cognate and concludes Eminent.
… to a Hebrew audience the name Seba sounded very clearly like it came from the verb (saba), meaning to imbibe… and is mostly associated with strong liquor and heavy drinking. Noun (sobe) means a drink… Whatever the original name was intended to convey, to a Hebrew audience the name Seba must have looked like Drunkard. According to Klein’s Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language, the name Seba means He Drank Wine.’
Isaiah 43:3
English Standard Version
For I am the Lord your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Saviour. I give Egypt as your ransom, Cush [India] and Seba in exchange for you.
Isaiah 45.14
New Century Version
The Lord says, “The goods made in Egypt and Cush [India] and the tall people of Seba will come to you and will become yours. The Sabeans will walk behind you, coming along in chains. They will bow down before you and pray to you, saying, ‘God is with you, and there is no other God.’”
Psalm 72:10
English Standard Version
May the kings of Tarshish [Japan] and of the coastlands [East & South East Asia] render him tribute; may the kings of Sheba and Seba bring gifts!
Seba is included with their neighbour, India. A clue is given regarding their height. The Tamils of Sri Lanka are taller than either Indian Tamils or Indians in general. Seba and the Sabeans are the peoples of modern day Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka has a population of 21,635,528 people. Cush’s five sons together, boast a population even bigger than China’s Magog, Tubal and Meshech.
Sri Lankan man and woman
Havilah in Hebrew means: ‘Circle’ and from the verb hul, ‘to whirl’, the verb hawa, ‘to gather into a symbiosis’ and the verb laha, ‘to languish’ and by extension, a ‘languishing village,’ or an ‘exhausted revelation.’
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The name Havilah is assigned three different times in the Bible: It is first mentioned as a land that contains both gold and the river Pishon, one of four rivers of Eden (Genesis 2:11). The people of Ishmael settled there (Genesis 25:18) and [King] Saul drove out the Amalekites from there (1 Samuel 15:7).
The land [of] Havilah was probably named in retrospect, as the territory of one of the two human Havilahs… we surmise that the Pishon may have been named after the Indus River… that the story of the four rivers most generally tells of the evolution of human civilization… Also note that in Genesis 2:11 the name Havilah is preceded by the definite article or article of approach: the or onto Havilah. [1] A son of Cush, (Genesis 10:7). [2] A son of Joktan, the son of Eber (Genesis 10:29).’
The people of Ishmael settled in the Havilah of Joktan^ descended from Shem; not the Havilah from Cush, the son of Ham.
‘The name Havilah probably comes from the root group (hul I & II) and can be interpreted in many ways: Verb (hul I) denotes a whirling in circular motions… noun (hol), mining sand, the noun (hil), meaning pain so bad that it makes one writhe (specifically childbirth)… verb (hul II) means to be strong… derived noun (hayil) means might.
When the letter waw is a consonant (as it is in the name Havilah) it is a completely different letter than when it is a vowel (as in the verb), and there must be a very good reason why a vowel changes to a consonant (the same problem occurs with the name David). Perhaps it is to deliberately point at some other words.
Perhaps to the verb (hawa): means to lay out in order to live collectively, and describes investing one’s personal sovereignty into a living collective… to prostrate, which is to submit oneself wholly and bodily to a collective or to a leader… another form of laying out is in proclaiming information that will lead to greater oneness among the hearers… the noun (ahawa) meaning brotherhood.
For a meaning of the name Havilah… Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names has… Trembling* (with pain).’
Genesis 2:10-14
New English Translation
Now a river flows from Eden to water the orchard, and from there it divides into four headstreams. The name of the first is Pishon; it runs through [Hebrew: it is that which goes around] entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is pure; pearls and lapis lazuli are also there). The name of the second river** is Gihon; it runs through the entire land of Cush [India]. The name of the third river is Tigris; it runs along the east side of Assyria. The fourth river is the Euphrates.
Though it is tempting to assume the Havilah in question is that of Cush, because of Cush being mentioned in the next verse; it is actually Havilah, the son of Joktan^ who is being referenced [refer Chapter XXIV Arphaxad & Joktan: Balts, Slavs & the Balkans].
Flags of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh
Today, Havilah is the nation of Bangladesh. Coincidently, it has so many rivers and water ways that regular and devastating flooding causes much pain* to its 168,735,132 inhabitants.
Assignment Point – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Bangladesh is a land of rivers. In fact, the pride of Bangladesh is her rivers withone of the largest networks in the world.
In spite of being a very small country, Bangladesh has an amazing number of about 700 rivers. Most of the rivers… rise from the Himalayan range and fall into the Bay of Bengal.
The rivers of Bangladesh consist of tiny hilly streams, winding seasonal creeks, muddy canals, some truly magnificent rivers, and their tributaries. In some places, such as Patuakhali, Barisal, and Sundarbans… the watercourses are so plentiful that they form a veritable maze… Bangladesh has predominantly four major river systems – 1) the Brahmaputra-Jamuna, 2) the Ganges-Padma,** 3) the Surma-Meghna, and 4) the Chittagong region river system.’
The synchronous of the four main river systems many millenniums apart is notable; with the Gihon river running through the ‘entire land of Cush’ possibly synonymous with the Ganges River. The original location of Eden and its Garden will be investigated in a subsequent chapter [refer Chapter XXII Alpha & Omega].
Man and woman from Bangladesh
Sabtah and Sabteca, the third and fifth sons of Cush, are not mentioned outside of Genesis Ten and 1 Chronicles One.
Sabtah in Hebrew means: ‘Breaking through, encirclement’ from the verb sabat, ‘to beat or break’ and the verb sabab, ‘to turn or go around, encircle.’
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Sabtah is a son of Cush… In Genesis 10:7 his name is spelled [one way] but in 1 Chronicles 1:9 it’s spelled [differently as Sabta] which appears to be an Aramaic spelling. The etymology of the name Sabtah and that of his brother Sabteca is unclear. Both names start out with [a letter] which does not occur in Hebrew.
Neither BDB Theological Dictionary nor NOBSE Study Bible Name List attempt to interpret these names but Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names proposes relations with an Arabic verb, which transliterated into Hebrew would form [a word] which means to beat or to break. Jones… states that this name means Breaking Through, and adds: i.e. a terror to foes. But perhaps a Hebrew audience that wasn’t aware of Arabic roots, would have associated our name Sabtah with the Hebrew root (sabab), meaning to turn or go around, encircle… the verb (sabab) describes a going in a circular motion: to turn, turnabout, turn into or to encircle. Nouns (mesab) and (musab) describe that which surrounds (i.e. a wall)*’
Sabteca means in Hebrew: ‘Beating, Encircle Depression,’ from an unused verb sabat, ‘to beat or break’ like Sabtah.
Abarim Publications:
‘From (1) the verb (sabab), to turn or encircle, and (2) the verb (ka’a), to be disheartened… the name Sabteca ends with (k-a), the meaning of which can also not be retrieved. The verb (ka’a) is a rare verb… The even rarer adjective (ka’eh) means cowed.’
Sabtah and Sabteca are a nation and a territory – possibly a future State – which are both encircled in being landlocked; represented by modern day Nepal with a population of 30,415,157 people [acting as a wall* along the mountainous border of India and China] and Kashmir, the disputed and disheartened territory located in the north of India and Pakistan.
Kashmir’s population is an estimated 15,427,841 people. Notice the spelling of Kash-mir and to the north east of Kashmir, above Pakistan, there is the Hindu Kush Mountain range. The Indian administered region of Kashmir, the union territories of Jammu and Kashmir have 12,541,302 people. The Pakistani territory of Azad Kashmir has 2,016,192 people and the Chinese region of Gilgit-Baltistan, has 870,347 people [approximate figures].
In 2 Chronicles 12.2-3 ESV, we are introduced for the first and only time to the Sukki, Sukkites or Sukkiim as mentioned by Dr Hoeh.
In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, because they had been unfaithful to the Lord, Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem with 1,200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen. And the people were without number who came with him from Egypt [Mizra] – Libyans [Lubim], Sukkiim, and Ethiopians [India].
This was a military alliance with Egypt against King Rehoboam of the Kingdom of Judah. Sukki or Sikki, means ‘booth dwellers’ with the connotation of being nomadic. The word has a similarity to the people of the Punjab, India who adhere to the Sik-h or Sikhism religion. Interestingly, the men let their hair grow, without cutting and wear turbans to keep it covered. Similar to a nazarite vow in the Old Testament and the Danite Judge Samson, who did not cut his hair [refer Chapter XXXIV Dan: The Invisible Tribe].
The Sukki are mentioned sandwiched between Phut and Cush and are a people in their own right, similar to Ararat and Minni, studied earlier [refer Chapter V Gomer: Continental South Asia & Polynesia]. The Sukki equate to the nation of Afghanistan today. Afghanistan’s population is 41,088,905 people. The Pashtuns make up the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan, comprising between 38% and 42% of the country’s population. Their main territory Pashtunistan, is between the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan and the Indus River in neighbouring Pakistan, where there, they are the second largest ethnic Group.
Flag of Afghanistan
We will now turn our attention to the sub-continent of India and study scriptures pertaining to Raamah and his sons Sheba and Dedan.
Raamah in Hebrew means: ‘Trembling, thundering,’ from the verb ra’am and ‘to thunder’. Quite applicable, when one imagines the enormous multitude of Indians and the noisy tumult their voices and footfalls would make. India’s population alone, is a staggering 1,421,558,134 people and set to overtake China during the first half of this century.
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The one and only Raamah in the Bible is a son of Cush… (Genesis 10:7). After his brief appearance in Genesis 10, and the parallel text of 1 Chronicles 1:9, where his name is spelled (Raama), we hear no more of this person. The unused verb (ra’am) probably meant to roll like thunder… appears to be a rare word to describe a horse’s mane, perhaps in the sense of its rolling or whipping. For a meaning of the name Raamah, NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Trembling. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads Thundering.
There are two completely different names in the Bible that both transliterate into English as Sheba – We’ll call our two different names Sheba I (spelled with an ayin) and Sheba II (spelled with an aleph):
Sheba I: ‘Seven, Oath.’ from (shaba), seven, or to swear.
The name Sheba-with-ayin is ascribed to: A town in Simeon (Joshua 19:2). A Benjaminite (2 Samuel 20:1). A Gadite (1 Chronicles 5:13). This name Sheba is identical to the words (sheba’), meaning seven and (shaba’), meaning to swear (an oath): has to do with… the act of binding with an oath… (seven seals or seven bonds).
Sheba II: Unknown, but perhaps Man, Drunk, Captive, Splinter
The name Sheba-with-aleph belongs to: [1] A son of Raamah… (Genesis 10:7). [2] A son of Joktan, who is the brother of Peleg (Genesis 10:28). [3] A son of Jokshan, son of Abraham and Keturah.* Sheba is also a region or nation of which the queen journeyed to Solomon 1 Kings 10:1; Matthew 12.42).’
This raises an important point, which has been a stumbling-stone for many commentators and researchers: the fact there are two Sheba and Dedan relationships in the Bible; plus a third individual in the Table of Nations, also called Sheba.* Also, Dedan is very much like Dodan, the son of Javan. Understandably, it has been confusing for researchers. One from Ham and two separate Shebas from Shem. This has led some to consider an editorial slip-up and that all are one-and-the-same. Rather than accepting they are listed for a reason and the possibility they were just popular names of the day, as we have our more commonly used names today. As we identity them, we will see that they are all separate personalities.
‘This name Sheba is according to Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names comparable with an Ethiopic word meaning ‘man’. And so, for a meaning of this name Sheba, Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads Man. BDB Theological Dictionary sees relations with a verb that means to make campaign or expedition, but lists (saba), meaning to imbibe (see the name Seba).
The name may even have to do with (shaba) to take captive. The noun is used in the Aramaic Talmud to mean splinter, a possible derivative (says BDB Theological Dictionary) from the unused (shbb I & II), which yields (shebabim, from root I), splinters, and (shabib, from root II), flame.
Dedan: Leading Gently, from the verb (dada), to move or lead slowly. The name Dedan comes possibly from the Hebrew noun (dd), meaning breast or nipple… For a meaning of the name Dedan, Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names goes with (dada) and reads Leading Forward, i.e. great increase of family. The NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Low…’
For further meanings, please refer back to Rodan and Dodan, sons of Javan in Chapter VII. A ‘great increase of family’ is certainly applicable to India. The Sons of Raamah have populated India; Sheba to the north and Dedan to the south.
In Ezekiel 27:12-24 NET, describing trading with Tyre, we have references to Sheba and Dedan from Cush, as well as from Abraham. We can ascertain who is who from the context of who is mentioned with them from an ethnic and geographical view. Recall point number one in the Introduction.
12 “‘Tarshish [Japan] was your trade partner because of your abundant wealth; they exchanged silver, iron, tin, and lead for your products.
13 Javan [South East Archipelago Asia], Tubal [Coastal China], and Meshech [Central China] were your clients; they exchanged slaves and bronze items for your merchandise. 14 Beth Togarmah [North (South) Korea] exchanged horses, chargers, and mules for your products. 15 TheDedanites [Southern India] were your clients. Many coastlands [East & South East Asia] were your customers; they paid you with ivory tusks and ebony… 22 The merchants of Sheba [Northern India] and Raamah [all India] engaged in trade with you; they traded the best kinds of spices along with precious stones and gold for your products.
20 Dedan [Abraham] was your client in saddle cloths for riding. 21 Arabia [Joktan & Abraham] and all the princes of Kedar [Ishmael] were your trade partners; for lambs, rams, and goats they traded with you. 23 Haran, Kanneh, Eden, merchants from Sheba [Abraham], Asshur [Russia], and Kilmad were your clients. 24 They traded with you choice garments, purple [feature of Tyre and Phoenicians] clothes and embroidered work, and multicolored carpets bound and reinforced with cords; these were among your merchandise.
The second stated Dedan and the second Sheba are related to Abraham and the peoples mentioned with them are descended from Shem. Sheba and Dedan of Raamah and Cush are in bold. The mention of ‘precious stones’ is worth noting as India’s second biggest export are Gems and precious metals. Peter Unseth, comments on this in the article we read earlier – emphasis & bold mine:
‘In Job 28:19, in a reference to the surpassing quality of a topaz, Job speaks of the “topaz of kush”. (The identification of the exact stone is not precise.) There are no topaz (or other similar gems) found in Ethiopia [but there is in India], at least not in the quantity to be known outside of the immediate area. The point of the reference to Kush is to assert its quality, the particular geography of its origin is not the point of the passage [disagree, as it is part of the point]. “Here the place name probably designates the quality of the gem and not its place of origin”(Reyburn 1992:512)Following this line of reasoning, GNB translates this “the finest topaz”.’
Once we understand where Cush is located today, then this verse is remarkable in its accuracy. It is actually stating a precious gem, from the modern geographic location of Cush. Topaz is found in India and anciently, it was one of twelve precious stones esteemed in Indian culture and medicine.
Job 28:19
New Century Version
The topaz from Cush cannot compare to wisdom; it cannot be bought with the purest gold.
Diamond mining extends back into Indian antiquity. Anciently, India was the source of nearly all the world’s known diamonds. In fact, until the discovery of diamonds in Brazil in 1726, India was the only place where diamonds were mined.
Psalm 72:10, 15
English Standard Version
May the kings of Tarshish [Japan] and of the coastlands [East & South East Asia] render him tribute; may the kings of Sheba [Northern India] and Seba [Sri Lanka] bring gifts! Long may he live; may gold of Sheba be given to him…
India is number four in the world, in the top ten countries with the most natural resources. India’s mining sector contributes 11% of the country’s industrial GDP and 2.5% of its total Gross Domestic Product. In 2010 the mining and metal industry was worth over $106.4 billion. India’s coal reserves are the fourth largest in the world and its other natural resources include ‘bauxite, chromite, diamonds, limestone, natural gas, petroleum, and titanium ore. India provides over 12% of global thorium, over 60% of global mica production, and is the leading producer of manganese ore.’
In Ezekiel 38:13 ESV: India, as we saw earlier with Japan, stands against the great Chinese military alliance of the far future. This is in keeping with current geo-political alliances. Both Japan and India favour a relationship with the United States, South Korea and Taiwan. Whereas China aligns with Russia, North Korea and Pakistan.
Sheba and Dedan [Northern and Southern India] and the merchants of Tarshish [Japan] and all its leaders will say to you [refer Chapter X China: Magog, Tubal & Meshech], ‘Have you come to seize spoil? Have you assembled your hosts to carry off plunder, to carry away silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods, to seize great spoil?’
Joel 3:8
Young’s Literal Translation
And have sold your sons and your daughters into the hand of the sons of Judah, And they have sold them to Shabeans [H7615 from H7614, Sheba: Genesis 10:7],unto a nation far off…
Most translations say Sabeans as in Seba, meaning Sri Lanka. It should read Sheba, as the people involved are being sold to a powerful nation and thus, India makes contextual sense. Sheba is also shown to be dominant over his brother Dedan in the scriptures. The link with Judah is also a significant clue [refer Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin – the Regal Tribes].
Chapter eighteen of Isaiah is dedicated to Cush. Verse 1 and 2 ESV:
Ah, land of whirring wings [Havilah] that is beyond the rivers of Cush [such as the Ganga (Ganges), Godavari, Brahmaputra and Krishna, the four longest rivers], which sends ambassadors by the sea, in vessels of papyrus on the waters!
Go, you swift messengers, to a nation tall and smooth [Seba], to a people feared near and far, a nation mighty [India] and conquering, whose land the rivers divide [India a country crisscrossed by nine major rivers].
Ezekiel 30:3-5, 9
English Standard Version
3 For the day is near, the day of the Lord is near; it will be a day of clouds, a time of doom for the nations. 4 A sword shall come upon Egypt [Mizra],and anguish shall be in Cush, when the slain fall in Egypt, and her wealth is carried away [by the King of the North], and her foundations are torn down. 5 Cush, andPut, and Lud, and all Arabia, and Libya and the people of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword. 9 “On that day messengers shall go out from me in ships to terrify the unsuspecting people of Cush, and anguish shall come upon them on the day of Egypt’s doom; for, behold, it comes!
Ezekiel 38:1-2,5-6
English Standard Version
The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, set your face toward Gog [the ruler], of the land of Magog [northern China], the chief prince of Meshech [Central China] and Tubal [Coastal China], and prophesy against him… Persia [Elam], Cush, and Put are with them, all of them with shield and helmet; Gomer [Continental South east Asia] and all his hordes; Beth-togarmah [(North) Korea] from the uttermost parts of the north with all his hordes – many peoples are with you.
We learned in verse thirteen that Cush, comprised of Sheba and Dedan with Tarshish of Japan are not aligned with Magog of China in the powerful future military alliance. Yet, verse 5 says Cush is an ally. India presumably begins in the alliance, to then later withdraw.
Other noteworthy verses regarding Cush, include Isaiah 20:1-6, Jeremiah 46:9, Ezekiel 27:10, 29:10, Habakkuk 3:7, Amos 9:7, Nahum 3:9 and Zephaniah 2:12.
Steven Collins, an experienced and knowledgable Identity researcher concurs with an identification of Sheba and Dedan with India; for he states on his website:
‘“Sheba and Dedan” are increasingly looking like the nation of modern India, as is discussed in my May 2, 2007 Prophecy Blog entry entitled “Will India and the USA Become Allies?” India is a large democracy with an English-speaking history from its membership in the British Empire [and Commonwealth]. It is increasingly being drawn toward the West via economic ties as well as mutual concerns about Islamic terrorism and the rapid militarization of China.’
Jeremiah 13:23
English Standard Version
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots…
The people of Cush were identifiable by their dark skin. We read the following regarding Moses’s third wife. Presumably, his second wife had died at this point and Moses’s sister and brother took umbrage.
Numbers 12:1-3, 9-11
English Standard Version
Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married… And they said, “Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?” And the Lord heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed. When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow.
And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said to Moses, “Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned.
It is ironic that Miriam’s condemnation of Moses taking a dark skinned wife, led to her becoming as white as snow. We read in 1 Kings and also the Song of Solomon – all eight chapters – about Solomon meeting the Queen of Sheba. Judging from the accounts, they were quite enamoured with each other.
1 Kings 10: 1-13
English Standard Version
Now when the queen of Sheba [reigned 960 to 945 BCE] heard of the fame of Solomon [reigned 970 to 930 BCE] concerning the name of the Lord, she came to test him with hard questions [circa 955 BCE]. 2 She came to Jerusalem with a very great retinue, with camels bearing spices and very much gold and precious stones. And when she came to Solomon, she told him all that was on her mind. 3 And Solomon answered all her questions; there was nothing hidden from the king that he could not explain to her. 4 And when the queen of Sheba had seen all the wisdom of Solomon, the house^ that he had built [Temple completed 959 BCE, 1 Kings 6:38], 5 the food of his table, the seating of his officials, and the attendance of his servants, their clothing, his cupbearers, and his burnt offerings that he offered at the house of the Lord, there was no more breath in her.
6 And she said to the king, “The report was true that I heard in my own land of your words and of your wisdom, 7 but I did not believe the reports until I came and my own eyes had seen it. And behold, the half was not told me. Your wisdom and prosperity surpass the report that I heard. 8 Happy are your men! Happy are your servants, who continually stand before you and hear your wisdom! 9 Blessed be the Lord your God, who has delighted in you and set you on the throne of Israel! Because the Lord loved Israel forever, he has made you king, that you may execute justice and righteousness.”
10 Then she gave the king 120 talents of gold, anda very great quantity of spicesand precious stones. Never again came such an abundance of spices as these that the queen of Sheba gave to King Solomon. 11 Moreover, the fleet of Hiram, which brought gold from Ophir, brought from Ophir a very great amount of almug wood and precious stones. 12 And the king made of the almug wood supports for the house^ of the Lord [Temple construction began in 966 BCE] and for the king’s house, also lyres and harps for the singers. No such almug wood has come or been seen to this day. 13 And King Solomon gave to the queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked besides what was given her by the bounty of King Solomon. So she turned and went back to her own land with her servants.
Song of Solomon 1:5-6
New English Translation
I am dark [H7838 – shachowr: Black, jet black, dusky] but lovely, O maidens of Jerusalem, dark like the tents of Qedar [Kedar, son of Ishmael], lovely like the tent curtains of Salmah. Do not stare at me because I am dark [H7840 – scharyah: blackish, swarthy], for the sun has burned [scorched] my skin.
Footnotes: The [second use of the] term “dark” does not appear in the Hebrew in this line but is supplied in the translation from the preceding line for the sake of clarity. The terms “black but beautiful” in the A-line are broken up – the B-line picks up on “black” and the C-line picks up on “beautiful.” The Beloved was “black” like the rugged tents of Qedar woven from the wool of black goats, but “beautiful” as the decorative inner tent-curtains of King Solomon (J. L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry, 40; W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry, 181).
In an article entitlted, The Dynasty of Moses and the Queen of Sheba, Hope of Israel Ministries, adds fascinating details of an amazing forerunner romance that preceded Solomon and the Queen of Sheba – capitalisation theirs, emphasis & bold mine:
‘In the book of Deuteronomy… God made Moses an amazing promise. After Israel had sinned, and made a golden calf to worship, Yehovah was furious. He declared to Moses: “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation MIGHTIER AND GREATER THAN THEY” (Deuteronomy 9:13-14). Moses, however, interceded for the people, and turned away… God’s wrath from them (verses 18-19, 22-29).
However, prior to Moses leaving Egypt, the Jewish historian Josephus points out that he had been a great general who led Pharaoh’s army to victory over the kingdom of Ethiopia, which had conquered most of Egypt. While attacking the Ethiopian capital city, Tharbis, the daughter of the king of Ethiopia, became enamoured of Moses, seeing his valiant exploits, and bargained to deliver the city into his hands if he would but marry her. Moses agreed, and she fulfilled her promise – and Moses married her, and fulfilled the obligation of a husband to her, causing her to become pregnant (Josephus, Antiquities, II, x). This occurred sometime before 1532 B.C., when Moses was driven out of Egypt for slaying an Egyptian (Exodus 2: 11-15). The vitally important royal city where this conflict culminated was “Saba.” Josephus relates:
Moses will be a subject of study in another chapter [Refer Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad – the Celtic Tribes and Appendix VII: Moses & the Exodus – Fabrication or Fact?]. Accordingly, Moses was born later than the article proposes, in 1526 BCE. Moses fled from Egypt at forty years of age in 1486 BCE. His campaign in Cush would have been circa 1506 to 1496 BCE [refer Appendix IV: An Unconventional Chronology].
“…he came upon the Ethiopians before they expected him; and, joining battle with them, he beat them, and deprived them of the hopes they had of success against the Egyptians, and went on in overthrowing their cities, and indeed made a great slaughter of these Ethiopians… the Ethiopians were in danger of being reduced to slavery, and all sorts of destruction; and at length they retired to SABA, which was a royal city of Ethiopia, which Cambyses afterward named MEROE, after the name of his own sister.
The place was to be beseiged with very great difficulty, since it was both encompassed by the Nile quite round, andthe other rivers...” (Antiquities II, X, 2). ‘The Greek historian Herodotus spoke of Meroe, or Saba, as “…a great city, the name of which is MEROE. This city is said to be the mother of all Ethiopia” (The History, pages 142-143, quoted in The Sign and the Seal, page 448).’
‘When Egyptian history is properly restored and reconstructed, this event means that Moses’ son by Queen Tharbis became the progenitor of a line of Ethiopian [Cushite] kings. When Israel left Egypt in 1492 B.C., [1446 BCE] the land of Egypt was in a shambles – utterly destroyed, as the Papyrus Ipuwerstates with awesome clarity in describing the plagues which fell upon that land – including the plague of blood. The papyrus also shows that invaders from the east, the Hyksos, conquered northern Egypt (lower Egypt) and dominated the region as cruel “shepherd kings” for about 500 years. These “Hyksos” were the Amalekites who fought the children of Israel in Sinai as they left Egypt (Exodus 18). They were not thrown out of Egypt until the reign of king Saul of Israel, who conquered the Amalekites in Arabia (I Samuel 15), and Samuel the prophet slew their king Agag (vs. 32-33) [refer Chapter XXIX Esau: The Thirteenth Tribe].
At this same time, the famous and powerful Eighteenth Dynasty arose in southern Egypt and Ethiopia – a dynasty of dark-skinned kings and queens! Among the famous kings of this powerful dynasty, which overthrew the Hyksos and conquered northern (lower) Egypt, Immanuel Velikovsky writes in Ages in Chaos: “The kingdom of Egypt, after regaining independence under AHMOSE, a contemporary of Saul, also achieved grandeur and glory under Amenhotep I, THUTMOSE I, Hatshepsut, and THUTMOSE III. Egypt, devastated and destitute in the centuries under the rule of the Hyksos, rapidly grew in riches” (page 103).
Notice the strange sounding names of this line of kings from southern Egypt and Ethiopia – they contain the name of their ancestor, who was none other than the Biblical MOSES! Why would Egyptian kings of the most powerful dynasty that ever ruled Egypt be called by the name of Moses, and be named after Moses? Because this dynasty of kings and queens was descended from Tharbis, who became Queen of Ethiopia, and her husband was none other than Moses!’
The first Pharaoh to incorporate moses as part of his name was a Pharaoh during the period of the Exodus, Pharaoh Dudimose I who reigned from 1450 to 1446 BCE. Though he was contemporaneous with Moses, he was not the Pharaoh of the Exodus as we shall discover. Some commentators have stated ‘moses’ is a title or rank rather than a personal name, so as to minimise or eliminate Moses from Egypt’s historical record. It is possible it became a title during and after the famous Moses had left his mark on Egyptian history.
‘As Josephus writes, after she delivered up the impregnable city of Saba to Moses, “No sooner was the agreement made, but it took effect immediately; and when Moses had cut off the Ethiopians, he gave thanks to God, and consummated his marriage, and led the Egyptians back to their own land” (Antiquities II, x, 2).
Notice! The royal city where this marriage was consummated was “Saba.” Saba can be none other than the same as Sheba! Thus, the Queen of Sheba, whom Josephus says was the Queen of Ethiopia and Egypt, who visited Solomon in 992 B.C., [circa 958 to 945 BCE] roughly 540 years after Moses married the Ethiopian princess, came from this same royal city of Saba-Sheba. This means that she was a royal descendant of Moses and Tharbis, the daughter of the king of Ethiopia – a descendant of Moses!
… God fulfilled his promise to make a powerful dynasty of kings from the loins of Moses. And in the days of Solomon, the Queen of Sheba – Hatshepsut [ruled Egypt 960 to 945 BCE],her Egyptian name, or Makeda, her Ethiopian name – like Tharbis, her ancestor, had a love affair or romance with a Hebrew leader – King Solomon. Thereby the royal lines of Moses [from the tribe of Levi]and David [from the tribe of Judah] became intertwined, and have ruled in the nation of Ethiopia [higher castes in the people of Cush] ever since…
The very name “Hatshepsut” itself may be indicative of the fact that this famous Queen, who visited the land of Punt, the “Divine Land,” and who built a temple on the banks of the Nile at Thebes in upper Egypt patterned after Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, was indeed the Queen of Sheba. “Ha,” in Hebrew, means “the.” “Sut is a suffix which may relate to royalty. Thus her actual name is “Shep,” but nominatives are often interchangeable, and it could be rendered “Sheb,”that is, SHEBA – thus her very name could mean, “The Sheba Queen,” or“The Queen of Sheba.”
Interestingly, historians know that the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, at its most powerful, was a [black] dynasty –that is, Ethiopian or Nubian! On page 105 of his book Ages in Chaos, Velikovsky has a plate showing the visage of Queen Hatshepsut, courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is a regal looking statue showing her distinctive Ethiopian features, or a mixture of Ethiopian and Semitic – but of course, for she was the descendant of Tharbis and Moses!
Was Hatshepsut the same person as the Queen of Sheba, or the Queen of Ethiopia, as Josephus states clearly that the Queen of Sheba was? The Ethiopian name of this Queen, who visited Solomon and had a son by him, was Makeda. Did Hatshepsut have this as her personal name? Velikovsky quotes the Karnak obelisk, in Breasted, Records, volume II, section 325, in its description of the famous Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut: “Thy name reaches as far as the circuit of heaven, the fame of MAKERE(Hatshepsut)encircles the sea”(Ages in Chaos, page 105).
Makere is clearly the same name as Makeda, the Ethiopian name for the Queen of Sheba or Saba. The term “Sheba” or “Saba” refers to the name of the famous Ethiopian royal city at the confluence of the Nile and two other Ethiopian rivers, at the upper reaches of the Nile! The word “Ethiopia”is a Greek word meaning “burnt faces.” The Hebrew word Cush, translated as “Ethiopia,” was used in Biblical times to refer to “the entire Nile Valley south of Egypt, including Nubia and Abyssinia” (Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, page 5, quoted in The Sign and the Seal, page 450).
The 1955 Revised Constitution of Ethiopia confirms the age-old monarchy’s Divine Right to rule. It states: “The Imperial dignity shall remain perpetually attached to the line of Haile Selassie I, whose line descends without interruption from the dynasty of Menelik I, son of the Queen of Ethiopia, the Queen of Sheba, and King Solomon of Jerusalem…” (ibid., page 24). Haile Selassie, the former Emperor of Ethiopia, claimed to be the 225th direct line descendant of Menelik I, the son of the Queen of Sheba or Saba, the royal city and “mother” city of all Ethiopia. Thus her Biblical name, “Queen of Sheba,” actually helps to prove her true identity!’
The above claim of lineage by Haile Selassie of the nation of Ethiopia, is included for interest and not proof [refer Chapter XII Canaan & Africa]. If Moses’s first wife was a descendant from Cush, then it is not such a random act for Moses to later take another Cushite woman as his third wife.
Was Hatshepsut the Queen of Sheba – or Merely the Queen of Theba? By Emmet Sweeney – emphasis & bold mine:
‘In the Old Testament she is named simply “Queen of Sheba,” but in the Gospel of Matthew [12.42] she is called “Queen of the South”. Both these titles point directly to Egypt.
In the Book of Daniel the Ptolemaic pharaoh is named “King of the South” on several occasions. It may be that this was not the most common biblical designation for the Egyptian ruler, but its occurrence in Daniel, without any explanatory comments, proves beyond question that it was a commonly-used expression. And the king of the south shall be strong … and shall enter into the fortress of the king of the north … and shall also carry captives into Egypt … So the king of the south shall come into his own kingdom and return to his own land (Daniel 11, v. 5-9).
It should be noted that the Book of Daniel is generally dated to the first century BC, whilst the Gospel of Matthew seems to have been written in the third quarter of the first century AD. Evidently, during this century or two, “monarch of the south” was an accepted term for the Egyptian ruler… Hatshepsut was… very definitely a Queen of the South. She was also, as we shall now see, a Queen of Sheba.
The capital of Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty was the mighty city of Thebes. Modern Egyptologists still use this name, which is derived from the Greeks. Where the Greeks got it has always been a mystery, since the native name of the metropolis, in the hieroglyphs, is read as Wa-se or Wa-she (actually, the glyphs used are that of the scepter – written as Uas-t by Budge – and that of a plant and an arm – written as Shema or Sh-a by Budge: thus Uas-sha or Was-sha).
… Lisa Liel of Israel, an authority on both hieroglyphic and cuneiform scripts, pointed out to me that in her opinion the word should be read as Se-wa or She-wa, since the spellings of hieroglyphic names vary and in addition are often written not precisely as they should be pronounced. In fact, spellings often had more to do with aesthetics or religious sentiment than with strict phonetics. Thus the name Tutankhamen is actually written as Amen-tutankh (since the god’s name had to come first) and the names of the Senwosret pharaohs of the Twelfth Dynasty appear in the hieroglyphs as Wsr-t-sn. One might also note that various pharaohs whose names are made up of the elements Ka-nefer-re are alternately named Nefer-ka-ra (in actual fact the name appears in the hieroglyphs normally as Ra-nefer-ka).
Now, if Thebes’ Egyptian name is really Shewa(Sheba) then a whole host of hitherto mysterious facts become comprehensible. First and foremost, we now know where the Greeks got the word Thebes (Theba). A normal linguistic mutation (lisping) turns “s” or “sh” into “th.” Thus for example the Persians called Assyria, Athuria. Secondly, we know why Josephus called the capital of Ethiopia (i.e. Upper Egypt/Nubia) by the name Saba or Shaba. Finally, we understand the significance of the name of another cult shrine of the god Amon – the oasis of Siwa.
Thus the two titles by which the Queen of Sheba is known in the biblical story clearly identify her as a queen of Egypt. Yet the connection between Egypt and the terms Queen of Sheba and Queen of the South still however leaves us with the question: Why did the biblical authors prefer these terms to “Egypt”? One possible answer, which may or may not be of value, is that the Jewish chroniclers were keenly aware of the Nubian (ie“Ethiopian”) origin of the Eighteenth Dynasty. To call the Queen of Sheba an Egyptian would thus, perhaps, have been (in their minds at least) a slight inaccuracy.
We recall here that a generation or so after the time of Solomon, Israel was attacked by an “Ethiopian” ruler named Zerah. Everyone, even mainstream scholars, agree that this “Ethiopian” king was an Egyptian pharaoh (he is said to have brought an army of Libyans [Phut] and Ethiopians [Cush] against Israel), and the present writer agrees with Velikovsky in identifying this man withAmenhotep II[7th king of the 18th Dynasty 912-887 BCE] – a man whose Nubian ethnic identity is very clear in the portrayals of him that have survived.’
There are scholars and commentators that refute Hatshephut as being the same person as the Queen of Sheba and the Biblical narrative as authentic; but in so doing, do not provide a viable, believable or provable alternative.
Matthew 12:42
Amplified Bible
The Queen of the South (Sheba) will stand up [as a witness] at the judgment against this generation [the last generation], and will condemn it because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon; and now, something greater than Solomon is here [the Messiah].
The term Queen of the South is a tantalising clue as it confirms the status of India on the world stage, while at the same time excluding it from the future confederate Islamic nations incorporating the King of the South: Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, Indonesia and possibly Bangladesh.
Anil Gupta predicts that India will become a superpower this century and that due to ‘India’s functional institutions of democracy, it will emerge as a desirable, entrepreneurial and resource and energy-efficient… full-fledged economic superpower by 2025’ [refer article: 2050] India did briefly become the world’s fastest growing economy in 2015 but since 2018 growth has declined below China’s. Robyn Meredith notes that ‘some of India’s achievements, such as working to dismantle the centuries-old caste system and maintaining the world’s largest diverse democracy, are historically unprecedented.’
Fareed Zakaria offers that India’s young population allied with the second largest English speaking population in the world could give India an advantage over China. Thus by 2050, India’s per capita income could rise by twenty times its current level. Another strength, is that India has maintained a democratic government, lasting for over seventy years, providing long-term stability and in the process giving India a stable name. Clyde Prestowitz founder and president of the Economic Strategy Institute and former counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Ronald Reagan administration, said: “It is going to be India’s century. India is going to be the biggest economy in the world. It is going to be the biggest superpower of the 21st century.”
Parag Khanna believes India along with China will grow ever stronger as the West stagnates. Though he stresses that India is lagging behind by several decades in development and ‘strategic appetite.’ He added that India is “big but not important” as it has a successful professional class, yet many millions of its citizens still live in abject poverty. Khanna also wrote that it ‘matters that China borders a dozen more countries than India and is not hemmed in by a vast ocean and the world’s tallest mountains.’ Manjari Chatterjee Miller, at Boston University ‘argues that India is a “would-be” great power but “resists its own rise” and that “India’s inability to develop top-down, long-term strategies means that it cannot systematically consider the implications of its growing power. So long as this remains the case, the country will not play the role in global affairs that many expect.”
Some readers will have been doing mental cartwheels from the moment it was suggested India is composed of two brothers, Sheba and Dedan. As the ‘Aryans’ of the north appear to be physically, diametrically opposite in contrast with the Dravidians of the south. How could they possibly be blood brothers?
It is quite a hot topic and subject of debate regarding how different the two peoples of India appear to be… or are they? We will hope to understand this question by the end of the section on Cush.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary [third edition 2009], the name ‘India’ is derived from the Classical Latin of India; a reference to South Asia and the region to its east. Derived successively from Hellenistic Greek for India, the ancient Greek Indos, the Old Persian Hindush – an eastern province of the Achaemenid empire – and finally, the Sanskrit, Sindhu, or ‘river’, for the Indus River. The ancient Greeks referred to India as Indoi; translated as ‘The people of the Indus.’ The term Bharat, mentioned in Indian epic poetry and India’s Constitution is used by many Indian languages. The modern rendering of the historical name Bharatavarsha – which applied to a region of the Gangetic Vally – is Hindustan, a Middle Persian name for India, introduced during the Mughal Empire. Its meaning varied between referring to a region encompassing present day northern India with Pakistan, and to India in its near entirety.
India has the fifth largest economy in the world and a GDP of $2.87 trillion in 2019 – 4% higher than in 2018. With its large population, India has the lowest per capita GDP amongst the twenty-five biggest economies in the world and is the third largest by purchasing power parity, or PPP with $9.56 trillion.With an average annual GDP growth rate of 5.8% over the past two decades, India is one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. ‘India’s economy is a mixture of traditional village farming and handicrafts alongside booming modern industry and mechanized agriculture. India is a major exporter of technology services and business outsourcing, and the service sector makes up a large share of its economic output. Liberalization of India’s economy since the 1990’s has boosted economic growth, but inflexible business regulation, widespread corruption, and persistent poverty pose challenges to ongoing expansion.’ India is a global economic power in the making, in the vein of china.
‘The following export product groups categorize the highest dollar value in Indian global shipments during 2021.
Mineral fuels including oil: US$56.4 billion
Gems, precious metals: $38.2 billion
Machinery including computers: $24.2 billion
Iron, steel: $21.2 billion
Organic chemicals: $21.2 billion
Pharmaceuticals: $19.5 billion
Vehicles: $18.9 billion
Electrical machinery, equipment: $18.8 billion
Cereals: $12.4 billion
Cotton: $10 billion
Mineral fuels including oil was the fastest grower among the top 10 export categories, up by 104.1% from 2020 to 2021. That product category was propelled by higher international revenues from India’s exported refined petroleum oil. In second place for improving export sales was iron and steel via a 99.4% gain.’
Of the nations with the largest gold reserves, India ranks ninth, one place behind Japan. It has 687.8 tonnes, which represents 6.5 percent of its foreign reserves. The Bank of India in fact, has one of the largest stores of gold in the world and India is the ‘second largest consumer of the precious metal, and is one of the most reliable drivers of global demand.’
After World War I – in which one million Indians served – a new period began in India. The British brought reforms but also repressive legislation, leading to a deepening Indian preoccupation with self-rule. A non-violent movement of non-co-operation began. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi would become its leader, figurehead and enduring symbol. At this time there was also an upsurge of Muslim nationalism. Ultimately, independence was achieved in 1947; tempered by the partition of the British Indian Empire into two independent states: a Hindu majority Dominion of India and a Muslim majority Dominion of Pakistan. Havoc ensued with ‘unprecedented migration amid large-scale loss of life.’
‘Economic liberalisation, which began in the 1990s, has created a large urban middle class, transformed India into one of the world’s fastest growing economies,and increased its geopolitical clout. Indian movies, music, and spiritual teachings play an increasing role in global culture.Yet, India is also shaped by seemingly unyielding poverty, both rural and urban; by religious and caste-related violence, by Maoist-inspired Naxalite insurgencies; and by separatism in Jammu and Kashmir and… unresolved territorial disputes with’ [both] China and… Pakistan.
India has two major language families, Indo-Aryan spoken by about 74% of the population and Dravidian, spoken by 24% of the population. ‘Other languages spoken in India come from the Austroasiatic and Sino-Tibetan language families. India has no national language.Hindi, with the largest number of speakers, is the official language of the government.English is used extensively in business and administration…’
There are approximately 245 million native speakers of Dravidian languages.Dravidian speakers form the majority of the population of Southern India from Dedan* and are also found in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Bhutan. The origins of the Dravidians are considered a ‘very complex subject of research and debate.’
The origin of the Sanskrit word dravida is Tamil. Sanskrit tradition used the word to denote the geographical region of Southern India and according to one source, dravida in Sanskrit means ‘surrounded by water’ or ‘a Peninsula.’
‘Epigraphic evidence of an ethnic group termed as such is found in ancient India where a number of inscriptions have come to light datable from the sixth to the fifth century BCE mentioning Damela or Dameda persons’.*
‘Dravidian grammatical impact on the structure and syntax of Indo-Aryan languages is considered far greater than the Indo-Aryan grammatical impact on Dravidian. Some linguists explain this anomaly by arguing that Middle Indo-Aryan and New Indo-Aryan were built on a Dravidian substratum. There are also hundreds of Dravidian loanwords in Indo-Aryan languages, and vice versa.
Studies have shown that the Indian subcontinent houses two major ancestral components: ‘the Ancestral North Indians (ANI) which is broadly related to West Eurasians and the Ancestral South Indians (ASI) which is clearly distinct from ANI.Later, a component termed “AASI” (found to be the predominant element in ASI), was distinguished in subsequent studies.’
An online Encyclopaedia – emphasis & bold mine:
‘As no “ASI” or “AASI” ancient DNA is available, the indigenous Andamanese (exemplified by the Onge, a possibly distantly related population native to the Andaman Islands) is used as an (imperfect) proxy. The two groups (ANI and ASI) extensively mixed in India between 4,200 and 1,900 years ago (2200 BCE-100 CE).
In fact, Dr. David Reich states that sometime between 1,900 and 4,200 years ago, “profound, pervasive convulsive mixture [between the ANI and ASI] occurred, affecting every Indo-European and Dravidian group in India without exception.”Because of this mixing, according to Reich et al., both ANI and ASI ancestry are found all over the subcontinent (in both northern and southern India) in varying proportions, and that “ANI ancestry ranges from 39-71% in India, andis higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers”.
According to a large craniometric study (Raghavan and Bulbeck et al. 2013) the native populations of India and Sri Lanka have distinct craniometric and anthropologic ancestry. Both southern and northern groups are most similar to each other also show deep relations to populations ofEurope, the Middle East and North Africa [not really Europe, partially North Africa and mainly the Middle East]. The study further showed that the native South Asians, north and south, form a unique group distinct from “Australo-Melanesians”. However Raghavan and Bulbeck et al., while noting the differences of South Asian from Andamanese and Australoid crania, while alsonoting the distinctiveness… between South Asian and Andamanese crania, explain that this is not in conflict with genetic evidence showing a partial common ancestry and genetic affinity between South Asians and the native Andamanese, stating that “the differences may be in part due the greater craniometric specialisation of South Asians compared to Andamanese.’
The Andamanese are Negrito peoples living on islands in the southeastern region of the Bay of bengal in Southeast Asia. They are related to the Negritos and Melanesians of the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Australia.
As stated above and highly significant for the Andamanese [AASI] – and by implication all Melanesians – is the admittance that the cranial structure of an Australian Aborigine for example even though bigger, is still in genetic proportion to a person from Southern India [ASI].
Compare a Dravidian and an Aborigine, side-by-side and the resemblance** is clear, as stated earlier. It is interesting to note that we earlier identified the Polynesian-Micronesian and Filipino peoples as linked with Rodan and Dodan from Javan [refer Chapter VII Javan: Archipelago South eats Asia & Polynesia]. The Negritos are descended from Dedan. Coincidently or not so, the highest number of Negrito peoples from Dedan, are located in Dodan, of the Philippines. As researchers have claimed, there has been significant admixture between Polynesians from Japheth and Melanesians from Ham via inter-marriage, with their Haplogroups supporting this blend.
As we have digressed; let’s look at the Negritos, before returning to India and Cush.
An online Encyclopaedia – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The main paternal haplogroup of the Negritos is K2b in the form of its rare primary clades K2b1 and P (a.k.a. K2b2 or P-P295). Most Aeta males (60%) carry K-P397 (K2b1), which is otherwise uncommon in the Philippines and is strongly associated with the indigenous peoples of Melanesia and Micronesia. Basal P is rare outside the Aeta and some other groups within Maritime Southeast Asia. Some Negrito populations are Haplogroup D-M174, a branch of D-M174 among Andaman Islanders, as well as Haplogroup O-P31 [M268 O1b] which is also common among the now Austroasiatic-speaking Negrito peoples, such as the Maniq and the Semang in Malaysia. The Onge and all the Adamanan Islanders belong strictly to the mitochondrial Haplogroup M. It is also the predominant marker of other Negrito tribes as well as Aboriginal Australians and Papuans. Analysis of mtDNA, which is inherited exclusively by maternal descent, confirms the above results. All Onge belong to mDNA M, which is unique to Onge people.
A 2009 study by the Anthropological Survey of India and the Texas Biomedical Research Institute identified seven genomes from 26 isolated “relic tribes” from the Indian mainland, such as the Baiga tribe, which share “two synonymous polymorphisms with the M42 haplogroup, which is specific to Australian Aborigines“. These were specific mtDNA mutations that are shared exclusively** by Australian aborigines and these Indian tribes, and no other known human groupings.
Bulbeck (2013) shows the Andamanese maternal mtDNA is entirely mitochondrial Haplogroup M. Their Y-DNA belongs to the D haplogroup, which has only been found in Japan and Tibet at low frequencies outside of the Andaman Islands, a fact that underscores the insularity of these tribes.
The word Negrito is the Spanish diminutive of negro, used to mean “little black person”. Many online dictionaries give the plural in English as either “Negritos” or “Negritoes”, without preference.
The plural in Spanish is “Negritos”.This usage was coined by 16th-century Spanish missionaries operating in the Philippines, and was borrowed by other European travellers and colonialists across Austronesia to label various peoples perceived as sharing relatively small physical stature and dark skin.Contemporary usage of an alternative Spanish epithet, Negrillos, also tended to bundle these peoples with the pygmy peoples of Central Africa, based on perceived similarities in stature and complexion.(Historically, the label Negrito has also been used to refer to African pygmies.)’
Indian men
Dispersals Into India by Rene J Herrera & Ralph Garcia-Bertrand. In Ancestral DNA, Human Origins, and Migrations, 2018 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘All the mtDNA lineages outside Africa are derived from three deep-rooted (old) founder haplogroups: M, N, and R. This is reminiscent of what is seen in relation to the Y chromosome in which all haplogroups in Eurasia descend from three ancient haplogroups, C, D, and F. In addition, both uniparental genomes (genetic makeup) in the populations of India exhibit little recent mtDNA and Y chromosome impact from non-Indian-Eurasian groups, and no evidence of extinction or replacement of the original settlers has been observed…’
This is an important comment as it reveals that the Indian sub-continent is composed of specific peoples, especially applicable to the north in that they have not been diluted as significantly by Aryan peoples that have invaded and dwelt in Northern India, as many researchers, historians and anthropologists claim.
‘The very similar ages of haplogroups M, N, and R, 61,300, 64,100, and 65,500 ya, respectively, are congruent with a single early migration, possibly made up of several hundred migrants.
Also, it is noteworthy that several subhaplogroups derived from the M, N, and R parent mtDNA types exhibit dates of origins very similar to the parent haplogroups themselves.’
As the mtDNA super Haplogroups M, N and R equate to the split from L3 with L0 to L6 and M being indicative of Ham and his wife, Na’eltama’uk’s descendants and N with Japheth and his wife, ‘Adataneses and R from Shem and his wife, Sedeqetelebab. Haplogroups that derived from these parent Haplogroups, tangible in their offspring the grandchildren of Noah, would therefore, exhibit dates of origins very similar to the parent Haplogroups themselves.
‘This condition suggests that the mutations that define the subhaplogroups of M, N, and R occurred soon after the arrival of AMHs to the subcontinent. It is also likely that population expansion events took place soon after the colonization of South Asia by AMHs. These dispersals clearly extended beyond the borders of the Indian subcontinent and into the rest of Eurasia. These initial population expansion events… resulted in a fivefold increase in the population.
Yet, signals of additional secondary expansions from the Near East to India involving lineages W, U7, and R2 (haplogroups descendants from N and R) are evident, dating to more recent time periods (about 30,000 to 20,000 ya).^
These younger population expansion episodes coincide with humid epochs prior to the LGM 18,000 ya [culminating in the flood circa 10,837 BCE]. Also this radiation and increment in population density coincides with the emergence of a novel, more refined, and sophisticated lithic tradition in India known as the geometric microlithic technology.
There are a number of other parallelisms between Y chromosome and mtDNA inheritance in AMHs with regard to the peopling of South Asia. For example, both sets of uniparental genetic systems indicate that the dispersals that led to the peopling of South Asia occurred soon after sapiens exited Africa [rather, exited the Ark] in a speedy migration [toward India [the Indus Valley, circa 10,000 BCE] and beyond to the east [the West and Mesopotamia, circa 8,000 to 9,000 BCE].
The absence of nucleotide differences in the coding (gene-containing) mtDNA among South Asian, Southeast Asian, and Oceania groups is congruent with a scenario of a brisk dissemination eastward occurring during a time span of thousands of years rather than tens of thousands of years. If the dispersal had been slow, the DNA would have been able to accumulate mutations during the trip.’
This time frame fits the period following the flood, for the dissemination for all the grandsons of Noah and not just Cush’s gene pool. That is, thousands of years have passed since 10,837 BCE rather than tens of thousands of years, which would have been indicative prior to the flood [refer Chapter I Noah Antecessor Nulla]. The mtDNA Haplogroups M, N and R and their descendent groups would be evident from Noah’s birth in 16,837 BCE and filtering from his three sons and their wives, circa 12,000 BCE. Therefore, it would have been between approximately 14,000 to 19,000 years ago for these Haplogroups to arise and mutate.^
‘As with the Y chromosome haplogroups, the mtDNA lineages generally exhibit genetic uniformity among extant Indian populations across language, caste, and tribal groups. This suggests that the arrival of the primal mtDNA types took place before the creation and partitioning of caste and tribal groups. Also, the mtDNA M lineage characterizes populations of East Eurasia, including South Asia, whereas West Eurasian populations feature mtDNA haplogroups N and R and their derivatives.
It is worth noting that a coastal route is also supported by both uniparental genetic markers. Specifically, the absence of mtDNA haplogroup M in contemporaneous Levantine populations suggests that AMHs carrying the mitochondrial M type de-parted Northeast Africa via the Southern route (the Horn of Africa) and continued through the littoral of Iran, Pakistan, and India to the east. The other suprahaplogroup, type N, predominantly of West Eurasia, could have traveled with migrants using the southern (Horn of Africa) or northern (Sinai Peninsula) route, which then moved into the Levant and westward.
Today the most common mtDNA types in the subcontinent are M, R, and U. Haplogroup U is a descendant of R. The ancient M haplogroup and its sublineages constitute about 60% of the overall Indian populace.
M is found at 58% among the cast groups [northern India] and 72% amid the tribes [southern India], with a demic increase toward the south and east of India. As a suprahaplogroup, M contributes considerably to the genetic diversity of the subcontinent.The other 40% of mtDNAs in India belong to suprahaplogroup R.’
Indian women
An online Encyclopaedia, remarks on pertinent points regarding Indian lactose tolerance – emphasis & bold mine:
‘According to Gallego Romero et al. (2011), their research on lactose tolerance in India suggests that “the west Eurasian genetic contribution identified by Reich et al. (2009) principally reflects gene flow from Iran and the Middle East.” Gallego Romero notes that Indians who are lactose-tolerant show a genetic pattern regarding this tolerance which is “characteristic of the common European mutation.”According to Romero, this suggests that “the most common lactose tolerance mutation made a two-way migration out of the Middle East less than 10,000 years ago [post-Flood]. While the mutation spread across Europe, another explorer must have brought the mutation eastward to India – likely traveling along the coast of the Persian Gulf where other pockets of the same mutation have been found.”
Asko Parpola, who regards the Harappans to have been Dravidian, notes that Mehrgarh (7000 BCE to c. 2500 BCE), to the west of the Indus River valley,is a precursor of the Indus Valley Civilisation, whose inhabitants migrated into the Indus Valley and became the Indus Valley Civilisation. It is one of the earliest sites with evidence of farming and herding in South Asia. According to Mondal et al. 2017, based on paternal DNA analysis,Indians are most closely related to Southern Europeans and people in the Levant and that this relation existed already before Steppe migration: These results suggest that the European-related ancestry in Indian populations might be much older and more complex than anticipated…
Two genetic studies (Shinde et al. 2019 and Narasimhan et al. 2019,) analysing remains from the Indus Valley civilisation (of parts of Bronze Age Northwest India and East Pakistan), found them to have a mixture of ancestry… The analysed samples of both studies have little to none of the “Steppe ancestry” component associated with later Indo-European migrations into India. The authors found that the respective amounts of those ancestries varied significantly between individuals, and concluded that more samples are needed to get the full picture of Indian population* history.’
Lactose tolerance, associated with European peoples is a clue to the fact that Indians though not a European people, but rather a Hamitic line… have a palpable injection of European DNA. This is the reason why there is variance amongst individuals and not a uniform pattern of admixture throughout the Indian population.* Before we address how this admixture originated, a brief description of Lactose and what intolerance to it means.
Lactose is milk sugar, is an essential component of breast milk. Its digestion is made possible by an enzyme, called lactase, which breaks down lactose as simple sugars which can be absorbed into the bloodstream. In most mammals, the production of the lactase enzyme reduces significantly after weaning. Older children and adults become lactose intolerant. This applies to most of the worlds population. Some people possess a genetic mutation that allows the production of lactase through adulthood. This is called lactase persistence [LP].
Lactase persistence is particularly common among Northwest Europeans descended from the ancient Celtic, Nordic and Germanic people. The highest incidence for the lactase persistence alleles, are found among the Scandinavia nations – Sweden, Denmark, Norway – the Dutch, British – England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland – the Irish and Basque peoples.
Y-DNA Haplogroup R1b men in Western European are thought to be the first people on Earth to successfully domesticate cattle and to develop a lifestyle based on cattle husbandry and herding. It is known that most herding societies consumed some animal milk and made cheese from it, as cheese contains less lactose and is easier to digest for lactose intolerant people. Speculations among geneticists and evolutionary biologists regarding the origin of the lactase persistence allele in Europeans are ongoing. The origin of the mutation may have been present at low frequencies in the human gene pool before it underwent positive selective pressure among cattle-herding societies.
The LP allele was found at a frequency of 27% among thirteen individuals from the Lichtenstein Cave in Germany. They belonged to the Urnfield culture and were a mix of Y-Haplogroups R1b, R1a and I2a2. Today, the LP allele is proportional to the percentage of R1b and to a lesser extent R1a, found in a population. In the British Isles, the Low Countries and southwest Scandinavia LP is the highest in the world – the combined percentage of R1a and R1b generally exceeds 70% of these populations. In Iberia, the highest percentage of LP is observed among the Basques, who have the highest percentage of R1b in Europe. In Italy, LP is most common in the north, in proportion to R1b levels. The lowest incidence of LP in Europe is found in Southern Italy, Greece and the Balkans – the regions which have the least R1b lineages.
The Indian population – a people descended from Ham – shows evidence of the presence of a mutation for Lactase persistence universally associated with Shem’s descendants. How did this happen? One of the biggest misconceptions in ethnology and the identity movement, is the belief that the peoples of North Africa, the Middle East, South[west] Asia – and even the Latino-Hispano peoples of the Americas, are akin to European peoples. The Arabs claim to be descended from Ishmael, Abraham’s first son and this has certainly muddied the waters [refer Chapter XIV Mizra: North Africa & Arabia and Chapter XXVIII]. The Indians are labelled Aryans and this has definitely clouded the issue.
The word Aryan, refers to the region of present day Iran and etymologically, Iran and Aryan are the same. The European peoples who once lived there, later encroached on the region now located in northern India. The peoples of Northern India and Cush in turn, have had that name ascribed to them. Northern Indians do exhibit skin tones and facial characteristics that are Aryan, received through admixture. Are the Indians themselves Aryan… no they are not.
We have covered considerable material thus far, which has shown that even though there is a difference between Northern and Southern Indians – these terms preferred to Aryan, Indo-European or Caste and Dravidian or Tribal, [which only confound further] and we would expect a difference, for they are the brothers Sheba and Dedan – we have also seen that they are related, even before any admixture. What is overtly apparent with some of the Northern population, is the evidence of a fusion of European ancestry.
There are two aspects in answering this question. The first is presented by Arthur Kemp in March of the Titans, 1991 & 2016, pages 36-37, 38 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Around 2000 BC, a sun worshipping Indo-European tribe calling themselves Aryans invaded central Asia and occupied territory as far as the north of India… [using] the Sanskrit written language. By the middle of the sixth century BC the Persian Empire has incorporated Aryana into its boundaries… During the first century AD,the Kushans, an Asiatic race, occupied Aryana… [later] Another branch of the Aryans penetrated as far east as India, where they settled and built a civilization. The invading Aryans were more advanced and referred to the conquered Indians as “Dasyu” – the “dark ones” or slaves.
… a clear distinction was drawn between the two types of people in the Indus River Valley: the “fair” conquering immigrants and the “dark” native people. Within three hundred years… physical mixing… [led to] two racial classes… [and] membership in each class was determined solely by the color of an individual’s skin. This became known as the caste system. The word “caste” was [a Portuguese term]… from the Latin word cactus, meaning pure. The original Sanskrit… was “varna” which means color… the caste system became more… complex, till four major divisions were created… with the highest caste, the Brahmans… being the lightest in color, and the Sudas or “untouchables” being the darkest.
The… Aryan… legacy lives on in the language, religion, and poetry of India – and the caste system. Blue or grey eyes can, however, still be found in the Indian upper classes, which tend to be concentrated in the northern parts of [the] country… Many of these lighter colored Indians become successful actors and actresses in India’s film industry which is nicknamed “bollywood.”’
An online definition of the term caste: ‘caste is not originally an Indian word, though it is now widely used, both in English and in Indian languages. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it is derived from the Portuguese casta, meaning “race, lineage, breed” and, originally, “‘pure or unmixed (stock or breed)”. There is no exact translation in Indian languages, but varna and jati are the two most approximate terms.’
The second aspect stems from those Bible verses we looked at earlier about Moses’s third wife, who was a Cushite and King Solomon’s love affair with the Queen of Sheba – Hatshepsut of Eygpt, also a Cushite – his one true love. Moses had a child with his first wife, the King’s daughter and Hatshepsut was descended from Moses. It is highly probable Moses and his third wife had children. He also had two sons with his second wife, Zipporah the Midianite.
Even though Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines [1 Kings 11:3, 43], it doesn’t say that he truly loved any of them. Only one son, Rehoboam who became King of Judah after Solomon died, is mentioned in scripture with two daughters [1 Kings 4:11, 14], Taphath and Basemath – also the name of a daughter of Ishmael, who became a wife of Esau [refer Chapter XXIX Esau: The Thirteenth tribe]. What is astonishing, is that only three children are mentioned, when Solomon must have had many, many children from so many wives. The Kebra Nagast contains a legend that Solomon sired a son with the Queen of Sheba and that she returned to her own land long before this child was born.
Moses was descended from the priestly tribe of Levi and Solomon was from the royal line of the Tribe of Judah. The lines of Moses and Solomon intertwining, while mixing with Cush, creates descendants from either a priestly or a joint priestly and royal line [refer Chapter XXX Judah & Benjamin – the Regal Tribes and Chapter XXXI Reuben, Simeon, Levi & Gad – the Celtic Tribes].
It would certainly be plausible for the royalty of Cush in desiring to protect and elevate those descendants and in so doing, contributing to the evolution of the caste system, to perpetuate these two lines. It also adds explanation to the lightness of skin that the Indians of higher castes exhibit and the physiological impact on Cush’s physiognomy and caste culture. This introduction of not only a priestly line, but also a royal line, would account for the caste system’s emphasis of the two highest, wealthier castes of first: priests, the Brahmins and second rulers, Kshatriyas or Rajanyas.
We will look at this further when studying Jacob’s sons and address a coincidence too striking to ignore, in the comparison of not only Cush’s historical association with Judah and Levi, but also its relationship with them today. Returning to King Solomon’s children and the seemingly glaring omission of them in the Bible. Scripture does offer an answer, though an unpalatable one. It helps to understand why there are no genealogical lists for Solomon’s sons as there are for Saul and David in the Bible and why Solomon is not included in Hebrews Eleven as a man of faith. The chapter reads as a hall of fame for heroes of the Old Testament. Yet Solomon is omitted. We have touched on 1 Kings eleven, regarding Solomon’s wives and concubines:
1 Kings 11:1-13
English Standard Version
Now King Solomon loved [or lusted after] many foreign women, along with the daughter of Pharaoh [Hatshepsut]: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite women, 2 from the nations concerning which the Lord had said to the people of Israel, “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods.” Solomon clung to these in love. 3 He had 700 wives, who were princesses [of royalty], and 300 concubines. And his wives turned away his heart. 4 For when Solomon was old his wives turned away his heart after other gods, and his heart was not wholly true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.
5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and did not wholly follow the Lord, as David his father had done. 7 Then Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the abomination of Moab, and for Molech the abomination of the Ammonites, on the mountain east of Jerusalem.* 8 And so he did for all his foreign wives, who made offerings and sacrificed to their gods. 9 And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away fromthe Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice 10 and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the Lord commanded.
11 Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. 12 Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. 13 However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son [Rehoboam], for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen.”
Worshipers of gods such as Chemosh and Molech practiced human sacrifice – the inhumane sacrificing of babies. Chemosh, Molech and Milcom, are names for gods within the pantheon of Ba’al. The Jewish Encylopaedia maintains that Solomon built a temple to Chemosh on the Mount of Olives* which remained in use for over four hundred years – from circa 940 to 540 BCE.
Deuteronomy 12:29-31
English Standard Version
29 “When the Lord your God cuts off before you the nations whom you go in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, 30 take care that you be not ensnared to follow them, after they have been destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire about their gods, saying, ‘How did these nations serve their gods? – that I also may do the same.’ 31 You shall not worship the Lord your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods.
Idols were composed of metal and fierce fires were heated inside the sculpture so it became cremation-level-hot. Worshipers placed babies onto the idol’s outstretched hands whereupon they burned to death. The hands could be winched so that the hands raised and then dropped the sacrifice into the idols mouth as if eating.
Isaiah 57:5-10
English Standard Version
… you who burn with lust [sexual rituals and magic] among the oaks, under every green tree [Asherah], who slaughter your children in the valleys, under the clefts of the rocks. On a high and lofty mountain [Nephilim related] you have set your bed, andthere you went up to offer sacrifice…
You journeyed to the king [Solomon] with oil and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off, and sent down even to Sheol [Hell]. You were wearied with the length of your way, but you did not say, “It is hopeless”; you found new life for your strength, and so you were not faint.
King Solomon’s Worshipful Offering to Molech.
Illustration from the 1897 Bible Pictures and What They Teach Us by Charles Foster.
Leviticus 20:1-5
English Standard Version
20 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Say to the people of Israel, Any one of the people of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech shall surely be put to death. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 I myself will set my face against that man and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, to make my sanctuary unclean and to profane my holy name. 4 And if the people of the land do at all close their eyes to that man when he gives one of his children to Molech, and do not put him to death, 5 then I will set my face against that man and against his clan and will cut them off from among their people, him and all who follow him in whoring after Molech.
Atrocity of the highest order and we can understand why the Creator became wrathful with Solomon and why the Kingdom of Israel later fragmented into two – the kingdoms of Israel and Judah – and if the false idol temple remained in Jerusalem for some four hundred years, this takes us to the time period when Judah ultimately fell in 587 and 586 BCE, with their punishment leading to captivity.
These sacrificial ceremonies were ancient and practised by Nimrod and the Nephilim before him. We will also find that a specific son of Jacob had and still continues, a propensity for these occult practices and that the powerful and prevalent backdrop of child sacrifice, looms large as a dark shadow over the account of the God who demanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac [refer Chapter XXVII].
Finally, recall when we studied Tiras in Chapter III; sources claimed he had a descendant called Cushni, who had granddaughters that had married into Cush and Phut and Canaan’s families. It may explain the difference between North American Indians and those from Central and South America. It also connects the American Indian by more than just a name with their counterparts in the Indian Sub-Continent.
Next, is Ham’s third son Phut; the people who comprise the nation of Pakistan.
Flags of India and Pakistan
Herman Hoeh writes – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Ham had another son, Phut or Put – it is spelled both ways in the Bible. Here is what Josephus writes about the people of Phut. “Phut also was the founder of Libya (by which he means [North] Africa), and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself: there is also a river in the country of the Moors which bears that name; whence it is that… the Grecian historiographers mention (Africa) by the appellation of Phut”. Put, then, is the father of the west and central Africans, where the true [Black people] live today. The Egyptians called the region of the Sudan (which was south of Egypt) by the name of Pet. The Babylonians and Persians called a similar region “Putu”.
Notice, however, that Put is named before Canaan in the tenth chapter of Genesis and in I Chronicles 1. Put was originally settled just south of Asia Minor, between Mizraim and the city of Hamath of the Canaanites. From this region Phut spread west and south to Africa, and also east! Numerous sons of Put early settled into the western region of Mesopotamia, a few hundred miles from ancient Babylon.This is the original center of Hindi, the language of northern and central India.
This is the same region that some of the sons of Abraham and Keturah settled.
The people who were settled in this region were uprooted by the Assyrians and driven east into India. In India the highest castes were not only called Brahmins, but also Rajputs. The word “Rajput” means “king or chief of Put.” The Indians of Central and North India – being slightly mixed with white stock – vary from light to dark brown. The Rajputs are the most noted warriors of India. The word “Phut” or “Put” means a warrior in Hebrew.
The word Phut is not properly translated “Libya” in Ezekiel 38:5. It should be translated Put or Phut, as given in the margin. The people of Phut are those of India. Of the four sons of Ham, only Cush bears a name which means “black”. Just as some of the sons of Cush are brown, so some of the children of Phut mutated racially into black. But this is not all of the story. What is the origin of all the black people of the Isles of Southeast Asia and Australia?’
Derek walker – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Both Gesenius… and Brown… identify Put as Libya. The first settlement of Put was called Libya by the ancient historians Josephus and Pliny. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, called the Septuagint, translates Put as Libya in about 165 BC. Biblically, Put (or Putt) is the region west of Egypt. This is the nation of Libya. Most modern scholars agree with this interpretation. The descendants of Put migrated to the land west of Egypt and became the source of the North African Arab nations, such as Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco.’
The political state of Libya, has a population of 7,098,666 people. Whereas Phut is prophesied as a growing economic and military power. North African Libya is not ideally placed to fulfil the Bible verses ascribed to it. Nor is it near Cush, that we have identified as principally India. The exact same issues with ascribing ‘Ethiopia’ or Kush to the African state of Ethiopia are mirrored in attributing ‘Libya’ or Put to the African state of Libya. Aside from all three being sons of Ham, both Phut and Cush have nothing to do with the Africans; in that the Black peoples are descended from Canaan, not Phut or Cush. The meaning of Phut aside from Hoeh’s definition of ‘warrior’ is unclear, though may mean a ‘gift’, from the verb put, ‘to give’.
Abarim Publications – empahsis mine:
‘This name is spelled the same as the verb put, to give… There is nothing in Hebrew that looks like this name. If this name indeed derives from the Egyptian verb put, it would mean Gift… Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names… reads Extension. NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Foreign Archers…’
The Book of Jasher 7:12 provides names for Phut’s sons:
And the sons of Phut were Gebul, Hadan, Benah and Adan.
The name Pakistan – in Urdu and Persian – means a land abounding in the pure and a land in which the pure abound. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan has the fifth highest population in the world, with 231,531,645 people and the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia. It is ranked among the emerging and growth leading N-11 economies of the world. ‘Pakistan’s political history since independence has been characterised by periods of military rule, political instability and conflicts with India.’
Pakistan has the sixth largest standing armed forces in the world. ‘The United States, Turkey, and China maintain close military relations and regularly export military equipment and technology transfer to Pakistan.Joint logistics and major war games are occasionally carried out by the militaries of China and Turkey.’
‘Urdu, the lingua franca and a symbol of Muslim identity and national unity is the national language understood by over 75% of Pakistanis. It is the main medium of communication in the country; yet the primary language of only 7% of Pakistan’s population.’Urdu and English are the recognised official languages of Pakistan; even though Punjabi is the most common language, being the first language for 40% of Pakistan’s population.
Pakistan’s principle exports:
‘The following export product groups categorize the highest dollar value in Pakistani global shipments during 2021.
Knit or crochet clothing, accessories: $4.5 billion
Cotton: $3.4 billion
Clothing, accessories (not knit or crochet): $3.4 billion
Cereals: $2.3 billion
Copper: $818.3 million
Leather/animal gut articles: $697.6 million
Fruits, nuts: $492.9 million
Salt, sulphur, stone, cement: $484.7 million
Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $437 million
Copper was the fastest grower among Pakistan’s top 10 export categories, up by 87.9% from 2020 to 2021. In second place for improving export sales was knitted or crocheted clothing and accessories via a 46.8% gain.’
Jeremiah 46:9
English Standard Version
Advance, O horses, and rage, O chariots! Let the warriors go out: men of Cush [India] and Put [Pakistan] who handle the shield, men of Lud, skilled in handling the bow.
Cush and Phut historically have been closely tied, similar to Magog, Tubal and Meshech [refer Chapter X China: Magog, Tubal & Meshech]. Cush and Phut, though often mentioned together; give no scriptural clue that they are one people in similar fashion to China, with three brothers within its borders. Therefore, it is fascinating that they were one amalgamated people for so many centuries; with the fundamental difference being religion as the key in their separation and partition.
In this regard, Pakistan has closer ties to its fellow Arab Muslim world. Note Ezekiel 38:5 ESV:
Persia [Turkey] , Cush [India], and Put [Pakistan] are with them, all of them with shield and helmet…
We have just read about Pakistan’s relationship with Turkey and China in connection with military technology and manoeuvres. The future military alliance with China, includes Pakistan with other key Islamic States, such as Turkey and Iran. In Daniel eleven and the prophecy involving successive Kings of the North and South throughout history, a future King of the North retaliates to an attack by the King of the South and subsequently subjugates Egypt, Cush and Phut, verse 43 ESV:
He [the King of the North] shall become ruler of the treasures of gold and of silver, and all the precious things of Egypt [Mizra], and theLibyansand theCushites shall follow in his train.
Ezekiel 27:10
New English Translation
Men of Persia [Turkey] , Lud, and Put [H6316 – Puwt: meaning: a bow] were in your army, men of war. They hung shield and helmet on you; they gave you your splendor.
2 Chronicles 16:8
New English Translation
Did not the Cushites and Libyans [H3864 – meaning: empty hearted, afflicted] have ahugearmywith chariots anda very large numberof horsemen?
Recall 2 Chronicles 12:3, which we looked at earlier. It also says Libyan or Lubim instead of Phut.
There are a couple of verses regarding Phut, which appear to state them twice. They are distinct and different terms, describing similar people.
Nahum 3:9
New English Translation
Cush and Egypt had limitless strength; Put [H6316]and the Libyans[Lubim H3864] were among her allies.
Ezekiel 30:5
New King James Version
“Ethiopia [Cush], Libya[Phut], Lydia, all the mingled people, Chub[H3552 Lehab], and the men of the lands who are allied, shall fall with them by the sword.”
We will delve into this more fully in the next chapter; for now though, the Lub-im or Lehab [H3853] are similarly related peoples descended from a different son of Ham , who have intermingled with Phut of Pakistan. We have seen the difficulty in defining a meaning for Phut. Not so for Lehab [H3853] – mentioned in the Genesis ten and 1 Chronicles table of nations – which in Hebrew means: ‘Flames, flaming’ from the noun lahab, ‘flame.’
Abarim Publications – emphasis & bold mine:
‘The unused verb (lahab) probably meant to flame or burn. Nouns (lahab) and (lehaba) mean flame, but also denoted the blade or a sword or tip of a spear. For a meaning of the name Lehabim, NOBSE Study Bible Name List reads Flaming. Jones’ Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names has Flames, or more interpretative, Scorching Heat. There is, of course, no telling why [they] were named or known as such… perhaps they… were arms dealers [many a true word spoken in jest].’
In keeping with the definition of Lehab, Pakistan is a zealous Islamic nation; supportive of terrorism and with a militaristic bias, that will intensify in the future.
Pakistani man and woman
Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages, multiple authors, 1999 – emphasis & bold mine:
‘About a fifth of the human gene pool belongs largely either to Indo-European or Dravidic speaking people inhabiting the Indian peninsula. The ‘Caucasoid share’ in their gene pool is thought to be related predominantly to the Indo-European speakers.
A commonly held hypothesis, albeit not the only one, suggests a massive Indo-Aryan invasion to India some 4,000 years ago. Recent limited analysis of maternally inherited mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of Indian populations has been interpreted as supporting this concept. Here, this interpretation is questioned. We found an extensive deep late Pleistocene genetic link between contemporary Europeans and Indians, provided by the mtDNA haplogroup U, which encompasses roughly a fifth of mtDNA lineages of both populations. Our estimate for this split is close to the suggested time for the peopling of Asia and the first expansion of anatomically modern humans in Eurasia and likely pre-dates their spread to Europe. Only a small fraction of the‘Caucasoid-specific’mtDNA lineages found in Indian populations can be ascribed to a relatively recent admixture.
The diagram is an outline of this Indian mtDNA tree within the background of the previously defined global mtDNA lineage clusters (haplogroups)… all of the Indian mtDNA lineages we inferred can be seen as deriving from the African mtDNA lineage cluster L3a… We found that more than 80% of the Indian mtDNA lineages belong to either Asian-specific haplogroup M (60.4%) or western-Eurasian-specific haplogroups H, I, J, K, U and W (20.5%), while the remaining 19.1% of lineages do not belong to any of the previously established mtDNA haplogroups. We note that haplogroup K should now be considered a sub-cluster of haplogroup U’
‘The skeleton network of Indian lineage clusters on the background of continent-specific mtDNA haplogroups.Red, Indians; green, western Eurasians; yellow, eastern Eurasians; blue, Africans. Haplogroup frequencies are proportional to node sizes.
All Indian, eastern-Eurasian and western-Eurasian mtDNA lineages coalesce finally to the African node L3a. The former are shown magnified to account for higher mtDNA diversity in sub-Saharan Africans. The most likely root of the tree is indicated within a pan-African cluster L1. The dashed line leading from the African external node L3a to the Eurasian mtDNA varieties identifies the position of L3a in the magnified part of the tree.
The first and the most profound layer of overlap between the western-Eurasian and the Indian mtDNA lineages relates to haplogroup U, a complex mtDNA lineage cluster with an estimated age of 51,000 – 67,000 years. Until now, this haplogroup has not been reported to occur in India nor east of India and was considered a western-Eurasian-specific haplogroup. Surprisingly, we found that haplogroup U is the second most frequent haplogroup in India as it is in Europe. Nevertheless, the spread of haplogroup U subclusters in Europe and India differs profoundly. The dominant subcluster in India is U2.Although rare in Europe, the South-Asian form differs from the western-Eurasian one: western-Eurasian U2 includes a further characteristic transversion at nucleotide position (np) 16,129, which is absent in Indian U2 varieties. We calculated the coalescence age essentially as described in and estimate the split between the Indian and western-Eurasian U2 lineages as 53,000 ± 4,000 years before present (BP).
We note that U5, the most frequent and ancient subcluster of haplogroup U in Europe, has an almost identical coalescence age estimate. Still, despite their equally deep time depth, the Indian U2 has not penetrated western Eurasia, and the European U5 has almost not reached India.’
This proves that the Indian of the north and south with mtDNA Haplogroup U2, is not Indo-European or Aryan – with U5 – but a specific, separate people who have descended from Ham not Shem, though they share a common paternal ancestor in Noah and a maternal ancestor in their mother, Emzara.
‘Reconstruction of haplogroup U lineages found in India. Green bold lines, the background of previously characterized haplogroup U lineages from western Eurasia; red lines, lineages and haplotypes found only in India;pink nodes, Dravidic speakers[south]; blue nodes, Hindi speakers [north].
Subcluster U7 is another variety of haplogroup U present in India. Unlike the Indian U2, it has been sampled, albeit rarely, in southern Europe, the Near East and (according to HVR I sequence identification only) also in Central Asia. We calculated the coalescence age of this subcluster in India as… considerably younger than that for U2.
Typical western-Eurasian mtDNA lineages found in India belong to haplogroups H, I, J, T, X and to subclusters U1, U4, U5 and K of haplogroup U. Frequencies of these lineages in Indian populations are more than an order of magnitude lower than in Europe: 5.2% versus 70%, respectively. This finding might be explained by gene flow… Nevertheless, we note that the frequency of these mtDNA haplogroups reveals neither a strong north-south, nor language-based gradient: they are found both among Hindi speakers from Uttar Pradesh (6%) and Dravidians of Andhra Pradesh (4%).
Assuming that they are largely of western-Eurasian origin, we may ask when their spread in India started.To assign a tentative date for their introduction, we calculated the averaged minimal distance of the corresponding mtDNA hypervariable region sequences in Indians from the branches shared with western Eurasians. We obtained a value for the statistic ρ equal to 0.46, consistent with a divergence time of 9,300 ± 3,000 years BP [the epoch of the flood and the subsequent re-populating of the Earth].
This is an average over an unknown number of various founders and, therefore, does not tell us whether there were one or many migration waves, or whether there was a continuous long-lasting gradual admixture. Their low frequency but still general spread all over India plus the estimated time scale, does not support a recent massive Indo-Aryan invasion, at least as far as maternally inherited genetic lineages are concerned. We note, however, that within an error margin this time estimate is consistent with the arrival to India of cereals domesticated in the Fertile Crescent.Furthermore, the spread of these western-Eurasian-specific mtDNA clusters also among Dravidic-speaking populations of India lends credence to the suggested linguistic connection between Elamite [Indo-Iranian] and Dravidic populations.
Thus, we have shown that the overwhelming majority [but not all] of the so-called western-Eurasian-specific mtDNA lineages in Indian populations, estimated here to be carried by more than a hundred million contemporary Indians, belong in fact to an Indian-specific variety of haplogroup U of a late Pleistocene origin. The latter exhibits a direct common phylogenetic origin with its sister groups found in western Eurasia, but it should not be interpreted in terms of a recent admixture of western Caucasoids with Indians caused by a putative Indo-Aryan invasion 3,000–4,000 years BP.From the deep time depth of the split between the predominant Indian and European haplogroup U varieties, it could be speculated that haplogroup U arose in neither of the two regions. This split could have already happened in Africa, for example, in Ethiopia, where haplogroup U was recently described.’
Not Africa, but rather back to when Ham and Shem were born circa 11,837 BCE and received the split or alternate U Haplogroup from their mother, Emzara.
‘Although there is no strong evidence yet for the presence of anatomically modern humans in India before 35,000-40,000 years ago, the earliest estimates of the presence of modern humans in Australia make it very likely that the subcontinent served as a pathway for east-ward migration of modern humans somewhat earlier and that it could have been inhabited by them en route, as suggested by the ‘Southern Route’ hypothesis. Our coalescence age estimate for the mtDNA sub-cluster U2 overlaps not only with the corresponding value for the European U5, but with the suggested coalescence age of the Indian-specific subset of the predominantly Asian haplogroup M lineages as well.
Taken together, these data suggest that a common denominator – most likely beneficial climate conditions [post last glacial maximum] – led to the expansion of populations all over Eurasia [post-flood], including the ancestors [Ham’s wife and Cush’s wife] of those who now encompass most of the mtDNA genome pool of the extant Indians.
Furthermore, this specific distribution of mtDNA varieties in India compared with the distribution observed among Mongoloids and the Caucasoid populations of western Eurasia is, at present, best explained by two separate late Pleistocene migrations of modern humans to India. One of them, possibly arriving by the southern route, brought to India an ancestral population carrying haplogroup M and was spread further eastward. The second migration brought the ancestors of haplogroup U.
Although the admixture of these major waves started perhaps very early – explaining the spread of these major mtDNA varieties all over the subcontinent – it is likely that it happened after the carriers of haplogroup M found their way further east, explaining the absence of haplogroup U lineages among Mongoloid populations studied so far.’
This conclusion is based on evolution and the ‘out of Africa’ theory; whereas the reality lay with the off the Ark scenario; in that both Ham and Shem’s wives carried the M super-Haplogroup that later mutated into the sub-super Haplogroup R. Meaning, both carried the relevant specific mtDNA U Haplogroups for their respective lines. Since Ham and Shem were born at the same time – possibly being Triplets – and likely married wives with similar birthdates, their corresponding U Haplogroups of U2, U7 and U5 respectively are of course, a similar age.
The main mtDNA Haplogroups in India include:
M 51% – U 19% – R 12% – H 5% – HV 3% – W 3% – N 2%
plus C F K J T A D L2 B I L0 L1 and X which less than 1%
The Lambadis nomads of India carry the highest levels of Y-DNA R1b and their mtDNA Haplogroups percentages are:
M 64% – R 13% – U 12%
H V T J N X K and W comprise 8%.
The Sri Lankan mtDNA Haplogroups:
M 58% – U 18% – R 14% and H to W 8%.
The Bengali in Bangladesh, mtDNA Haplogroups:
M 67% – U 13% – R 9% and H to W 6%.
M U R
India 51 19 12
Lambadis 64 12 13
Sri Lanka 58 18 14
Bangladesh 67 13 9
The M macro-Haplogroup in India includes many subgroups, ‘that differ profoundly from other sublineages in East Asia…’ as well as Central Asia. This is because these peoples are descended from Japheth as we have studied, whereas the Indians and related peoples, are descended from Ham. Subgroup M2, including M2a and M2b, is lower in the north of India and higher in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. M3a is highest in northwestern India. M4a peaks in Pakistan and Kashmir. M6a and M6b are found in Kashmir, the Bay of Bengal and Sri Lanka. M18 is found throughout South Asia, whereas M25 is less frequent.
R2 is common throughout the sub-continent and R5 as well, peaking in the southwest of India. R6 is widespread at low rates across India, peaking among Tamils and Kashmiris. Related group W, is found in the northwest of India, peaking in the Punjab and Kashmir. U2 is sparsely distributed, particularly in the northern half of India; though it is found in southwest Arabia. U2a has high density in both Pakistan and northwest India. U2b is found in Sri Lanka and also Oman, as is U2i. U2c is prominent in Bangladesh and West Bengal in India. U7 is significant in Pakistan and the Punjab, with its highest presence in near neighbour Iran.
Indian man and woman
Retina, Y Haplogroups, Fifth Edition, 2013, M Cristina Kenney & Nitin Udar – emphasis & bold mine:
‘Clade C was found in Central Asia, South Asia, and East Asia… C2 [now C1b2a M38] is found in New Guinea, Melanesia… C4 [now C1b2b M347] appears to be restricted among aboriginal Australians and is dominant in that population. C5 [now C1b1a1 M356] has a significant presence in India.
Haplogroup F is the parent of haplogroups from G to R; however excluding these common haplogroups, the minor clades F, F1, and F2, seem to appear in the Indian continent…
Until now, haplogroup H has not been well studied, members of this haplogroup were mainly found in theIndian continent…
Haplogroup L is found mainly in India and Pakistan,as well as in the Middle Eastand, very occasionally, in Europe, particularly in Mediterranean countries…
The highest frequencies of haplogroup Mare shown in Melanesia, being restricted to the geographical distribution of Papuan languages…
The P clade is the parent of haplogroupsQ and R, and is rarely found. It has been detected at low frequencies inthe Caucasus and India…’
The major South Asian and Indian Y-DNA Haplogroups are R1a, H, L, R2 and J2. According to studies undertaken between 2003 and 2010, R1a-Z93 as shown below, is prevalent throughout Central, Southern and West Asia; meaning it is shared by Japheth’s descendants from Madai, the Hamitic peoples of India as well as the Persians of Iran.
R2 on the other hand is restricted to Southern Asia.
Haplogroup L is found in India and further west, to include the Near and Middle East; and similarly for J2.
Haplogroup H is the one Haplogroup that is nearly entirely restricted to South Asia and particularly indicative of India. Y-DNA Haplogroup H is found at a high frequency, as the major indigenous paternal lineage and a defining marker Haplogroup for Indians. It is rarely found outside of South Asia, with some found in southeastern Europe and the Arabs of the Levant. All three branches of H are found in South Asia. Haplogroup H is found extensively in South India at approximately 28% and in North India at approximately 25%, showing their common heritage as the sons of Raamah. While in Pakistan, it is the reverse and is tellingly, much less frequent.
Haplogroup J is present in South Asia as J2a-M410 and J2b-M102. Overall, it is found in higher percentages in Pakistan than India; giving it some commonality with the Arab nations to its west. Haplogroup L is far more frequent in the south of India compared to the north, with rates of up to 68% in Karnataka as opposed to 2 to 7% in northern India. Overall, Pakistan nationally, has slightly less Haplogroup L than India.
Haplogroup O1b [O-K18 from M248] is somewhat mysterious as it is heavily associated with the East and Southeast Asians as we have learned in preceding chapters, yet it is found at varying frequencies in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh for instance. Recall, the Melanesians also exhibit O1 which is believed to have derived from admixture with the Polynesian [refer Chapter VII Javan: Archipelago South East Asia & Polynesia]. Observe the sharp divide between Haplogroup of R1 of Central and South Asia with Haplogroup O in Eastern and South East Asia.
R1a is thought to have originated circa 25,000 years ago – though more likely, half the number to 13,000 ya – with its sub-clade M417 or M198 diversifying circa 6000 ya, with a distribution of its sub-clades R-Z282 and R-Z280 in Central and Eastern Europe and R1a-Z93’s sub-Haplogroup M750 being exclusive of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. As this Haplogroup is found in Occidental and Oriental Eurasia as well as South Asia, it is a topic of much debate as to its origin geographically.
This is a blind, as the premise is based on evolutionary migration from Africa and or Australia; rather than a post-diluvian migration from the Indus Valley region and later Mesopotamia and Arabia.
Thus, the simple answer is that at least two sons of Noah carried the Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a; with Japheth’s children either inheriting or receiving R1a by admixture [refer Chapter III Central Asia – Madai & the Medes]. R2 and R2a are common Haplogroups in South Asia with at least 90% of R-M124 found in the region. R1 or M173 and R* or M207, are found in Bali, Indonesia. The specific eastern European branch of R1a is R-M458.
A recent genetic study by Yelmen et al. in 2019, shows that modern South Asian populations are close to each other and quite distinct from populations outside of South Asia or the lands of Cush. Analysis performed by Mondal in 2017, concluded that closest neighbour studies revealed that Indian Y-DNA paternal lineages are close to southern European populations and that ‘European-related ancestry in Indian populations might be much older and more complex than anticipated, and might originate from the first wave of agriculturists or even earlier.’
This finding supports the lines of Shem and Cush intermixing as we have learned. The relationships of Moses and King Solomon validate this in the least and a greater numeric and past influence from migrations and admixture at the most. The exact when and where this happened, may be found to run contrary to the current Aryan invasion circa 2000 BCE theory.
A major 2009 study by Reich, used 500,000 biallelic autosomal markers; hypothesizing ‘that the modern South Asian population was the result of admixture between two genetically divergent ancestral populations… These two “reconstructed” ancient populations he termed “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI) and “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI).’ Reich stated: “ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers, suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI.’’ Both the ANI and ASI ancestry is distributed all across the subcontinent in varying degrees, with “ANI ancestry [ranging] from 39-71% in India, and is higher in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speakers.”
Two studies based on autosomal markers – by Watkins in 2005 2005 and Kivislid in 2003 – concluded that ‘Indian caste and tribal populations have a common ancestry.’ A 2004 study by Viswanathan et al. on ‘genetic structure and affinities among tribal populations of southern India concludes:’ “Genetic differentiation was high and genetic distances were not significantly correlated with geographic distances. Genetic drift therefore probably played a significant role in shaping the patterns of genetic variation observed in southern Indian tribal populations.
Otherwise, analyses of population relationships showed that all Indian and South Asian populations are still similar to one another, regardless of phenotypic [genetic and environmental] characteristics, and do not show any particular affinities to Africans. We conclude that the phenotypic similarities of some Indian groups to Africans do not reflect a close relationship between these groups, but are better explained by convergence.”
The matter of the African being descended from Canaan and the Indian from Cush means they are brothers, from the same father, Ham. Granted, their respective Haplogroups bear little resemblance. Though, we will find that as Cush and Phut are similar siblings, Ham’s remaining son Mizra, possesses Haplogroups that bridge the gap between Canaan, Cush and Phut. Thus, the family link may not be just attributable to convergence as stated, but really is influenced by their genetic link as brothers. Likewise, the Southern and Northern Indians are similar as brothers as their shared Haplogroups indicate. We cannot know how they differed exactly, though it is clear that European admixture has altered the Haplogroup percentages for the Northern Indian, even if only subtly, as we will see.
Less frequent Haplogroups found in Indians include: T, F, P, C, R1b, G, E1b1a and Q. Indians in the United Kingdom have also exhibited, E1b1b and J1.
Afghanistan’s Y-DNA Haplogroups are represented by its majority group the Pashtun, comprising some 40% of the population. Overall, Afghanistan has more in common with Pakistan than India, or the other nations of South Asia. The mysterious Sukkim do not have a sequence close to any of Cush’s sons, apart from one. In Pakistan, the Punjabs comprise 50% of the population and the Pashtuns 15%. The Punjabs of India are located in the northwest of the country and account for approximately twenty million people.
Jammu and Kashmir Haplogroups are based on the Indian Gujars; who comprise 20 to 30% of the population. The southern Indians, or Dravidians comprise 25% of India’s population – of which, the two largest groups are the Telugus and the Tamils, with approximately eighty million people each. The Nepalese Haplogroups are based on the Terai Hindus.
Afghanistan: R1a – Q – L – H – G – J – R2 – C
Jammu & Kashmir: R1a – L – H – R2 – K – J – F – R1 – Q – C
Nepal: R1a – C – H – J – R2
Afghanistan: R1a [51%] – Q [18.4%] – L [12.2%] – H [6.1%] –
G [6.1%] – J [2%] – R2 [2%] – C [2%]
Kashmir Gujars: R1a [40.9%] – L [16.3%] – H [10.2%] – R2 [8.2%] –
K [8.2%] – J [6.1%] – F [4%] – R1 [2%] – Q [2%] – C [2%]
Nepal: R1a [69.2%] – C [11.5%] – H [3.8%] – J [3.8%] – R2 [3.8%]
The Nepalese Hindus as Sabtah, show the influence of Central and East Asia with a higher percentage of C. Aside from Haplogroup Q, Afghanistan as the Sukkim and Kashmir as Sabteca, are more closely aligned in the key Cushite Haplogroups of R1a, H and L than any other people in the region – with the exception of Pakistan.
Bangladesh: H – R1a – J – R2 – C – L – G – Q
Dravidian: H – R1a – J – L – F – R2 – G – C – Q – R1b
Southern India: H – R1a – R2 – J – L – T – F – C – P – R1b
Sri Lanka: R1a – L – H – J – R2 – F – P – K
Eastern India: R1a – H – R2 – J – T – F – P – L – C
Dravidians: H [32.9%] – R1a [26.7%] – J [19.7%] – L [11.6%] –
F [9.3%] – R2 [ 6.2%] – G [ 2.3%] – C [1.7%] – Q [0.3%] – R1b [0.3%]
S India: H [27.5%] – R1a [26.7%] – R2 [21.5%] – J [19.7%] –
L [10.8%] – T [5.1%] – F [4%] – C [1.9%] – P [1.6%] – R1b [0.3%]
Sri Lanka: R1a [27%] – L [19%] – H [15%] – J [14%] –
R2 [ 12%] – F [9%] – P [3%] – K [1%]
E India: R1a [23.2%] – H [19.3%] – R2 [15.5%] – J [4.1%] –
T [3.8%] – F [2.7%] – P [2.7%] – L [1.9%] – C [o.8%]
The Bangladeshi Y-DNA Haplogroups are based on the Bangladesh Bengalis. We can see the identities of Havilah, Dedan and Seba are more aligned to each other than to the first group of Sukki, Sabtah and Sabteca. As we will find repeatedly, some peoples have a closer Haplogroup sequence affinity with a cousin than a brother, who may also be somewhat removed geographically. Hence, one would expect Bangladesh and Eastern India to have more in common – or Eastern India with Southern India for a comparison – as Sri Lanka and the Dravidian of southern India; but as can be seen, it is in fact Eastern India and Sri Lanka that align more closely.
There is a relative resemblance between Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and the Dravidian Indians inhabiting Southern and Eastern India. All three peoples are generally the darker skinned peoples of Cush. Hence, little surprise that the northern Indians – 72% of India’s population – possess a contrasting Haplogroup footprint compared to these three.
Northern India: R1a – H – R2 – J – L – F – G – R1b
Indian Upper Castes: R1a – H – L – J – R2 – F – P – C – R1b
India Punjab: R1a – J – L – R1b – H – R2 – C
Lambadi: R1b – C – L – H – R1a – J – F – P
North India: R1a [48.9%] – H [24.5%] – R2 [11.1%] – J [7.8%] –
L [1.7%] – F [1.1%] – G [0.6%] – R1b [0.6%]
Upper Castes: R1a [30.5%] – H [23.3%] – L [11.4%] – J [10%] –
R2 [9%] – F [1.9%] – P [1.9%] – C [0.9%] – R1b [0.5%]
Lambadis: R1b [37.1%] – C [17.1%] – L [17.1%] – H [8.6%] –
R1a [8.6%] – J [5.7%] – F [2.9%] – P [2.9%]
A comparison of the Haplogroup sequences for the northern Indian, the Upper Castes, the Punjab and the Lombadis. Apart from the Lombadi Nomads and their anomaly of high frequency R1b, the highest levels of R1b in India are in the Punjab. This could be a hint at the lines that have entered amongst others, from people like the priestly line of Moses and a royal line from King Solomon. The Upper Castes overall, have a trace of R1b at 0.5%, as does northern India as a whole.
As R1b is indicative of a western European line of descent, this information alerts us to the fact that any link to the tribes of Judah and Levi – and by implication, other sons as well as relatives of Jacob – will point to them being found today, dwelling in Western Europe.
The average percentages for Y-DNA Haplogroups for the vast nation of India and its myriad peoples.
India: R1a – H – O2 – L – R2 – J2 – T1 – F – P – C – R1b – G
India: R1a [28.3%] – H [23%] – L [17.5%] – R2 [ 9.3%] – J2 [9.1%] –
T [3.1%] – F [3%] – P [2.7%] – C [1.4%] – R1b [0.5%] –
G [0.1%] – Q [0.4%]
Strains of R1a and J2 are found extensively outside of India and its related neighbours. Haplogroups L and R2 though found outside of South Asia, are still predominant in the Indian sub-Continent. These four Haplogroups are all marker Haplogroups for India; yet, it is Haplogroup H which is the defining marker Haplogroup for the Indian and related peoples.
The Punjabi have a percentage of 8% for R1b. The Punjabi in Pakistan by comparison, do not have any R1b. If Pakistan was a son of Cush and not Phut, one would expect to find evidence of R1b, as it is even found in the Dravidian. Interestingly, the Pathans – originally Pashtuns from Afghanistan who are refugees in the Punjab region of Pakistan – comprising 15% of the population, have a similar percentage of R1b with the Punjabs of India.
Pathans Pakistan: R1a – H – L – R2 – G – R1b – Q – R – C
Pathans Pakistan: R1a [38.1%] – H [14.3%] – L [9.5%] – R2 [9.5%] –
G [9.5%] – R1b [9.5%] – Q [9.5%] – R [4.8%] – C [4.8%]
Recall, we looked at the noticeable difference between the Indo-European Indians of the north and the Dravidian Indians of the south. Whether it be physical characteristics, skin tone, culture and so forth, they appear too different to be the full brothers, Sheba and Dedan from Raamah their father.
Yet, we learned that they are related and their Haplogroup sequencing supports this premise. The higher level in northern India’s R1a, possibly a result from intermixing, as well as a corresponding lower level in R2, J and L. The Northern Indians retain similar levels of H with the south of India – the very Haplogroup which is unique to the Cushite peoples of South Asia.
Pakistan Pashtun: R1a [44.8%] – L [12.5%] – G [11.5%] – J [6.2%] –
Q [5.2%] – H [4.2%] – F [2.1%] – T [1%]
Comparing the Punjab of Pakistan and India and also the Pashtun of Pakistan and Afghanistan, we find that they are related, but; even though they have the same name, they are clearly not the same peoples. The Punjabis who left India for Pakistan are descended from Phut and not from Cush. The lack of any R1b and far less frequency of Haplogroup H, reflect a different lineage; as does the difference in Haplopgroup G between say Pakistan and India.
Afghanistan: R1a [51%] – Q [18.4%] – L [12.2%] – H [6.1%] – G [6.1%] –
J [2%] – R2 [2%] – C [2%]
Pakistan Pashtun: R1a [44.8%] – L [12.5%] – G [11.5%] – J [6.2%] –
Q [5.2%] – H [4.2%] – F [2.1%] – T [1%]
Comparing Pakistan with India, highlights the fact that rather than being another descendant nation of Cush; Pakistan is descended from Phut. Their Haplogroup sequencing and percentages does not match the five main regions of Cush’s people: India, Jammu and Kashmir, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and in Nepal.
Pakistan: R1a – J – L – R2 – G – H – Q – C
India: R1a – H – L – R2 – J2 – T – F – P – C – R1b – G – Q
Pakistan: R1a [37.1%] – J [20.2%] – L [11.6%] – R2 [7.8%] – H [6.2%] –
G [6.2%] – Q [3.4%] – C [3%]
India: R1a [28.3%] – H [23%] – L [17.5%] – R2 [ 9.3%] – J2 [9.1%] –
T [3.1%] – F [3%] – P [2.7%] – C [1.4%] – R1b [0.5%] – G [0.1%] – Q [0.4%]
The obvious difference between these two great peoples is India’s higher levels of defining Haplogroup H and Pakistan’s higher levels of Haplogroup J. The higher percentage of J will be investigated in the following chapter.
A comparison table of the principle Y-DNA marker Haplogroups for the peoples of South Asia.
H R1a R2 L J
Afghanistan 6 51 2 12 2
Pakistan 6 37 8 12 20
Sri Lanka 15 27 12 19 14
India 23 28 9 18 9
Bangladesh 36 21 7 5 12
Aside from the Sukki of Afghanistan, Pakistan does not fit neatly with the rest of South Asia. Instead, Pakistan as Phut is in contrast with the descendants of Cush and though admixture has occurred between the two, Pakistan leans towards West Asia. The clues being the difference in Haplogroups H, R1a and J.
It is interesting to note that as Haplogroup H increases in these nations, the corresponding level of R1a decreases. There is also a preponderance of words beginning with the letter P: Pathan, Pashtun, Punjab, Pakistan and Phut.
Recall, that there appears to be two Libyas in scripture. We will study the Lubim in the next chapter and find they are actually part of the Pakistan nation. The clue is the prominent Haplogroup J and to a lesser degree, G.
We will discover in the next section that the J and G Haplogroups are found liberally in those people of Arabic descent to the west. The sons of Cush exhibit these two Haplogroups because they are related peoples descended from Ham. The fact that Pakistan has them at higher frequencies, is due to an Arabic admixture within the peoples of Phut.
Proverbs 9:9 New Century Version
Teach the wise, and they will become even wiser; teach good people, and they will learn even more.
“Majority wins, but majority is not necessarily right and sometimes majority is awfully wrong.”
Amit Kalantri
“The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.”
The Lighthouse 