A Tantalizing lead
The one thing that strikes as unusual on reading ancient world secular histories that pertain to the Levant region is the fascination these historians had for the kingdom called ‘Ethiopia.’ For some reason, Ethiopia enthralled ancient world secular historians to such an extent that they almost invariably included a study of it in their histories. Thus, we have Strabo (64 BC—24 AD), the Greek historian cum geographer, Eratosthenes (276 BC—194 BC), the Greek mathematician, geographer and astronomer, Flavius Josephus (37 AD—100 AD), the Jewish historian, Herodotus (484 BC—425 BC), and a host of other ancient world secular scholars, gladly pitching in with all the information that one would ever need about this seemingly insignificant kingdom.
Ethiopia was Egypt’s immediate neighbor to the south. Although it was not considered a progressive nation on par with Egypt, it nonetheless attracted considerable attention of the Greek scholars, possibly because of its tangy ‘barbaric’ flavor. In fact, ‘Ethiopia’ was not even the kingdom’s proper name. The name ‘Ethiopia’ is a derogatory generic term that the Greeks freely used, to refer to the ‘dark-skinned and barbaric’ denizens of this region.
So what of Ethiopia of the ancient world Greek scholars?
It is just this. Egypt’s immediate neighbor to the south, according to the Bible was not Ethiopia. It was Canaan. That is right. Canaan and not Ethiopia is consistently referred to in the Bible as Egypt’s southern neighbor. Remember, how the Jewish patriarchs, including Joseph and his band of brothers, kept bouncing back and forth between Egypt and Canaan, making it seem like an over-night camel ride? Here, take a look:
And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived. [Genesis 45:27]
And Joseph went up to bury his father (in Canaan): and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh, the elders of his house and all the elders of the land of Egypt. [Genesis 50:7]
From the above extracts, it appears that Egypt and Canaan were next-door neighbors and possibly, there even was a road connecting these two kingdoms. Wagons were constantly shuttling back and forth between Egypt and Canaan, suggesting that the distance involved could not have been very great; say not more than 50-odd miles.
The fact that Canaan was the ‘south country,’ meaning, situated south of Egypt, too is consistently documented. Here are a few extracts:
And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur and sojourned in Gerar [Genesis 20.1]
So Joshua took all that land, the hills and all the south country and all the land of Goshen and the valley and the plain and the mountain of Israel and the valley of the same; [Joshua 11.16]
In the mountains and in the valleys and in the plains and in the springs and in the wilderness and in the south country; the Hittites, the Amorites and the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites: [Joshua 12.8]
‘South country’ used here appears to have been the then used generic term to refer to the confederation of indigent kingdoms south of Egypt. The people themselves were collectively called ‘Amorites’ or ‘Canaanites.’ In reality, they were Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and others. In short, the south country or ‘Canaan’ (which is the generic term currently in use in place of ‘south country’) of the Bible appeared to have occupied the exact same spot as generic Ethiopia of the Greek scholars.
This raises a fascinating and very real possibility. Could this ‘generic’ Ethiopia of the Greek scholars have been the ‘generic’ Canaan of the Bible? Could the generic ‘Ethiopian’ have been the generic ‘Amorites,’ the inhabitants of Canaan?
It is a simple equation really. Both lay claims to have been Egypt’s southern neighbor. Both histories use a generic term to refer to the citizenry of this region that appears to identify a ‘barbaric’ or ‘backward,’ possibly a dark-skinned and distinctly different people.
To reiterate, on the one hand, we are having serious trouble with the current reconstruction of the Levant and have more or less zeroed in on a fatal reconstruction or mapping error as being the root cause. On the other, we have a tantalizing lead, a hint of duplication, with the assurance of serious anomalies, if instead of one kingdom, two were inadvertently created. Modern-day scholars have after all reconstructed two separate kingdoms. Canaan in the Ancient Near Eastern arena, following the dictates of the Bible, and Ethiopia has been reconstructed south of modern-day Egypt, based on clues offered by ancient world secular historians such as Herodotus and Strabo.
Could this inadvertent duplication in the Levantine arena, if indeed there is one, be the fatal reconstruction error we are looking for? It seems likely and what is more, quite easy to settle. All we have to do is compare the description given of Canaan in the Bible with that of Ethiopia proffered by the ancient world secular scholars and see if they match.
A complete list of history similarities are given below. Those that require elaboration are dealt with in forthcoming chapters.
HISTORY SIMILARITIES
ETHIOPIA
CANAAN
Elite Asmach soldiers desert from Egypt
Jews footmen or men of war desert from Egypt
The Asmach were harassed by a new king
The Jews were harassed by a new king
The Asmach were professional mercenary soldiers
The Jews too were clearly ‘men of war’
The king makes a last minute effort to make them stay
The Egyptian king negotiates with Moses and Arnon to stop them from going
Bloodless exit
The Jews exit out of Egypt without reprisal or bloodshed
A large number of Asmach soldiers (250,000) deserted
Large numbers of Jews soldiers (603,550) are said to have deserted
Went to Ethiopia, Egypt’s immediate southern neighbor.
Went to Canaan, Egypt’s immediate southern neighbor.
The Asmach were engaged by an Ethiopian king to expel his enemies from a certain tract of land (which belonged to him)
The Jews were (apparently) engaged by Moab to get rid of Sihon and Og who clearly were usurpers of Moab’s territories
The Ethiopian king allows them to retain the very same stretch of land that the Asmach help win back
The Jews are seen to retain the territories of Sihon and Og which they won in battle
The desertion, attack and gaining of territories all hint at a secret alliance the Asmach had with the Ethiopian king in question
The Exodus from Egypt, attack and gaining of territories, all speak of a secret alliance the Jews, especially Moses had with the Canaanite king in question. Moses, is even said to have married ‘Tharbis’ daughter of the said king
The Asmach gains a ‘promised land,’ one that was promised to them, and one that was a ready-made paradise with standing crop and all
The Deserters gain the ‘Promised Land,’ which was a ready-made paradise, and one that was perhaps promised to them by the Canaanite king with whom they had a secret alliance
The Asmach abandoned their families in Egypt
The Jews too had clearly abandoned their families in Egypt and their first order of business in their new kingdom was to find replacement wives in Canaan
Psammetichus was the Egyptian king in question
The new king mentioned was called Pharaoh King of Egypt and even ‘Palmanothes,’ both of which refer to Psammetichus
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Copyright © 1998 by James Natchurivalapil Rappai. All rights reserved. James Natchurivalapil Rappai (also known as James Rappai or N. R. James) has asserted his rights under the Indian and International Intellectual Property Rights (Copyright & Related Rights and Industrial Property Rights including patents) to be identified as the author, discoverer, and creator of this body of work. The material contained in this website, including the text, including the reinterpretation of ancient texts, all of which has also been codified into diagrams, maps, charts, tables, diagrams, & photographs and altogether gives this work its uniqueness of expression, cannot be copied, communicated, transmitted, reproduced, adapted, translated or cinematographically reproduced, in part or in full, or in a reconstituted manner. Any manner of infringement will swiftly and legally be dealt with to the full extent of the law.