the babylon connection
the babylon connection, part two
the babylon connection, part three
the babylon connection, part four
the babylon connection, part five
the babylon connection, part six
the babylon connection, part seven
the babylon connection, part eight
the babylon connection, part nine
the babylon connection, part ten
the babylon connection, part eleven
I had promised to post more about Canaan, from Bryant’s Ancient Mythology. Canaan is found in the writings of the ancient Egyptians, Syrians, and Greeks, as Cnaan, Cnas, and Cna. Stephanus Byzantinus and Sanchoniathon relate that the ancient name of Phoenicia was Cna (I noted last time that the Phoenicians were Canaanites). Sanchoniathon also tells us that Osiris was the brother of Cna. Now Osiris was a principal god of the Egyptians, and if by this the Phoenician historian is telling us that Egypt and Canaan were brothers, we find that Scripture agrees.
About Mizraim, the father of the Egyptians, much that the ancients, and the Egyptians themselves, have written is so veiled under allegory that it is very difficult, Bryant writes, to divest truth from fable. If “Mizraim” is a plural noun, meaning, “people of Misor, or Metzor” in Hebrew, then this much can be gleaned from ancient sources: that Mizraim is called Mestra by Josephus (Antiquities1.1.c.6.p.2); Stephanus Byzantinus calls Egypt Musar or Mysar; and Eusebius “Mestraia.”
“Sanchoniathon alludes to this person under the name of Misor; and joins him with Sydic, both which he makes the sons of Amunus and Magus. Amunus, I make no doubt, is Amon, or Ham, the real father of Misor, from whom the Mizraim are supposed to be descended. By Magus, probably, is meant Chus, the father of those worshipers of fire, the Magi … The Canaanites, likewise, were [Ham’s] offspring: and among these, none were more distinguished than those of Sidon; which, I imagine, is alluded to under the name of Sydic.”
Bryant, Ancient Mythology vol. 1., Radicals, p. 9.
Cush, Mizraim, and Canaan (who was the father of Sidon), were all brothers, and sons of Ham, according to the Scriptures. But as we noted, Cush, being the eldest, and his line had the ascendancy among the Hamites, and this might explain why he is made equal with Ham over his brothers in the Phoenician history. We can see that the historian is in error in some details, making Sidon the brother of Egypt when Canaan is instead; and Cush equal with Ham. But that the Phoenicians, without benefit of Scripture and the exact history of the ancient world told within it, rightly identified Egypt with Misor, and Sidon, or Canaan, as related to him, and both of them descended from Amon, or Ham, is a remarkable confirmation that these people were historical people, were fathers of nations, were related, and were involved somehow in Egyptian and Babylonian paganism, for “Amon” and “Magi” are names archaeologists have confirmed in both those ancient cultures having to do with pagan worship.
By the way, I have found the first and second volumes of Bryant’s Ancient Mythology posted at Project Gutenberg if anyone wants to read it. To be continued …
the babylon connection, part thirteen
the babylon connection, part fourteen
the babylon connection, part fifteen
the babylon connection, part sixteen
Leave a Reply