264

HAMITISH LANGUAGES RESUMED.

Mitzritish dialects of Tigré and Amhara in Abyssinia have been derived from the opposite shores of the Arabian Gulf, is sufficiently evident to render unnecessary in this place the investigation of them in detail'.

On the northern coast of Africa, the progress westward of the Mitzritish people who entered that continent by the way of Lower Egypt would have introduced their languages also in the same direction; and the " and the "striking coincidences [which]

may be found in the language of the Barbers", with the so-called Semitic family, are, as has already been observed3, convincing proofs of the correctness of the hypothesis which attributes a Mitzritish origin to these people. How far the tribes speaking dialects derived from this source may in the present day extend southward into the interior of Africa, is a question which is as unnecessary to be considered here, as it is beyond my ability to discuss.

The subject of the last family of the Hamitish languages, namely, the Canaanitish, will need but little discussion. The sole language of this family of which any remains now exist is the Phoenician. With respect to this language, Mr. Conybeare remarks, that “the only fragment of this still pre"served is the specimen of its Punic or Carthaginian daughter, exhibited in one of the plays

1 See Page 207.

› Page 230.

* Conybeare's Lectures, &c., p. 96.

* See Pages 210, 211.

CANAANITISH FAMILY.

265

of Plautus, the Pœnulus'," which, as he justly observes, "sufficiently proves the character of the language:" but it must not be overlooked that we have a more direct memorial of the ancient Phoenician language in the significant proper names mentioned by Sanchoniatho, of which the meaning is preserved by Philo Biblius, and which far more completely establish the intimate connexion between that language and the Hebrew: for example, Beeλoáμnv (Heb. Dy by Báḥal-hasshamáim), the Lord of Heaven'; Zuduk (Heb. py tsaddík), ‘the Just'; Aaywv (Heb. 17 dagán), ‘Bread'corn'; Move (Heb. ♫ máveth), ‘Death'; Zwpaonuiv (Heb. Dy tzophé-hasshamáim), 'the overseers of the heavens'; 'Ieovd (Heb. ' yakhíd), an only son'; &c.

2

Between the Mitzritish family of languages and those spoken among the descendants of Cush, an affinity, near or remote according to the circumstances under which both have been placed, should in like manner be distinguishable'; and when the

1 Lectures, &c. p. 95.

2 From

xiv. 16.

(tzópheh), ‘a watchman, or looker out.'-1 Sam.

The following observations of Dr. Pritchard, cited by Mr. Conybeare in his Lectures, &c. p. 104, are highly philosophical, and, with the exception of one point which I shall immediately notice, they are also in accordance with the opinions asserted by me: No sufficient comparison of the Egyptian and other "Northern African dialects with each other and with the Semitic

[Mitzritish] languages has been made to allow of any general

266 AFFINITIES OF THE HAMITISH LANGUAGES.

subject shall receive the more particular consideration of philologists, I have entire confidence that the result will establish the fact, that the common origin of all the languages and dialects spoken among the descendants of Ham will be at least as plainly evidenced as is that of the various tongues belonging to the numerous and widely spread descendants of Japheth.

"statement as to their relations. I may however observe, that "those who have denied that any affinity can here be traced appear rather to have presumed the fact than to have proved it. "The affinity of some striking words among the personal pronouns in the Egyptian and Hebrew languages is such as to "excite a strong suspicion that more extensive resemblances exist, though it does not appear probable that the idioms of "Northern Africa are even so near related to the Semitic [Mitzritish], as the latter are to the Indo-European languages."

From the last proposition here advanced by Dr. Pritchard I must however express my entire dissent; for the common origin which I attribute to the idioms of Northern Africa, and the so-called Semitic languages, must necessarily lead to a more intimate connexion between those two groups, as being both of Hamitish derivation, than can possibly exist between any of the individual languages composing those groups and the Indo-European languages, which, as belonging to the Japhthitish class, are of a totally distinct origin.

[ 267 ]

CHAPTER XI.

Position and extent of Mitzraim Proper.-Egypt not the Mitzraim of Scripture :-Mitzraim altogether to the eastward of the Isthmus of Suez.-Proofs in support of the distinction between the two countries :-No river crossed at the Exodus by the Israelites or by Pharaoh and his host;-The Horse a native of Mitzraim, and not of Egypt;-Mitzraim beyond the reach of the Nilotic inundations ;-The land of Goshen not a separate district, but a central and integral part of Mitzraim;-The Nile not the yeór (or river) of Mitzraim;-Proofs that the name Sihor is not applicable to the Nile;-Sihor and the brook of Mitzraim identical;-The position of this stream wrongly placed by Rhinocorura;-The Wady Gaza its representative at the present day;-Consideration of the yeór (or river) of Mitzraim; -Suggestions relative to the physical changes in this river and in the country of Mitzraim generally;-The fertility of Mitzraim dependent upon artificial and not upon natural means of irrigation ;-Conclusion from the entire body of evidence that Mitzraim is not Egypt.-Boundaries of Mitzraim Proper ;Its geographical definition.-Egypt the Cush of the later portions of Sacred History :-Proofs from Scripture ;-Confirmation from the book of Judith.-Consideration of the prophecies relating to Mitzraim;—Their incorrect application to Egypt. -Summary investigation of the Topography of Mitzraim Proper.

IN a former Chapter' I have stated it to be my conviction that the country known by the name of Egypt is NOT the Mitzraim into which Abraham "went down, and after him Jacob and his family, 1 Page 167.

268 "and out of which Jehovah brought the children "of Israel; nor is it the kingdom of the Pharaohs "of a subsequent period; neither, consequently,

THE MITZRAIM OF SCRIPTURE NOT EGYPT.

can it be the country which was the object of the "denunciations of the prophets."

Assertions like these, which are so entirely opposed to universal belief, and the consequences of which, if they can be supported, must be of such weighty and pervading importance in the future consideration of Scriptural History and in the interpretation of the many prophecies relating to Mitzraim, ought not, I am well aware, to be made but after mature deliberation, and upon the fullest and most unequivocal evidence. The deliberation has not been wanting: nor will the reasons, I trust, which have led to my conclusions be found deficient in force; although it must be for others, rather than for myself, to determine whether or not they are altogether valid and entirely sufficient to establish the assertions which have been founded upon them.

Before proceeding to detail these arguments, it will, in the first place, be advisable, in order to obviate the possibility of misconception as to my proposition that Egypt is not Mitzraim, to explain that by the expression 'Egypt' I mean the country to the westward of the Isthmus of Suez, to the exclusion of the desert to the eastward, which extends as far as the confines of Palestine, and which, although included territorially within the government of