TheCushites:RaceandRepresentationintheHebrewBibleBy Kev in Burre l l

Cushites are mentioned 54 times in the Hebrew Bible. But who were they? Our

understanding has been clouded. On the one hand, Amos 9:7 presents a most tantalizing

comparison between the Israelites and the Cushites: “Are you not like the Cushites to me, O

Israel, declares Yahweh?” but Biblical scholar William Rainey Harper’s 1905 commentary on

Amos which appeared in the popular International Critical Commentary series, provided the

following explanation: “Israel, says the prophet, is no more to me than the far-distant,

uncivilized, and despised black race of Ethiopians…. No reference is made to their Hamitic

origin, or their black skin; and yet their color and the fact that slaves were so often drawn

from them added to the grounds for despising them.”

Harper’s ‘clarification’ of the Amos text is a perfect example of how the values and beliefs of

the modern age influence, and even determine, interpretations of the past. It is also a

demonstration of the kind of unwarranted assumptions that often involve the ancient

Cushites. Is it factual that the “Ethiopians” who appear in the biblical text were “uncivilized,”

“despised,” and the slaves of the ancient world? The short answer is, of course, a

categorical no. But this exegetical trajectory was widespread among biblical commentators

well into the 20th century; and still today, both implicit and explicit racialized sentiments

about the Cushites can still be found among commentators.

The vast majority of the 54 references to Cushites in the Hebrew Bible concern the African

nation of Cush on the southern border of ancient Egypt. Known to the ancient Egyptians

mainly as Kush, the territory of the ancient Cushites covered the northern and southern

regions of present-day Sudan and Egypt, respectively, and is therefore to be distinguished

from the modern nation of Ethiopia, which lies much further south in the Horn of Africa.

Ancient Nubia, as Egyptologists prefer to call this region, was largely occupied by sub-

Saharan African peoples.

Cushites in the Hebrew Bible.

Map of ancient Nubia showing major regions and principal sites.

That ancient Egypt and Cush shared the Nile River and a common border allowed for

thousands of years of interaction between the two rival nations. Cushites and Egyptians

engaged in trade, diplomacy, and incessant conflicts resulting in a dynamic landscape of

social and political interconnections and millennia of bidirectional migration. Consequently,

people of Cushite origin could be found at every tier of Egyptian society—including the office

of the pharaoh. Cushite soldiers, for instance, were such an integral part of the Egyptian

army since the earliest times that Egyptologist Bruce Williams remarked “they played a role

in just about every struggle or military force whose composition is recorded, textually or

visually.”

Egyptian and Nubian Chronology.

In the New Kingdom (c. 1550-1070 BCE), Egypt subdued Cush and annexed the south into its

empire (which also included the Levant). The Cushites would in turn conquer Egypt and

establish the 25th Cushite Dynasty that lasted for about one hundred years beginning in the

middle of the 8th century BCE. Though the Cushites would lose their Egyptian holding by the

middle of the 7th century, the kingdom of Cush would last for nearly another millennium till

its final dissolution in the 4th century CE.

Images of Nubian Kings found by Swiss archaeologist Charles Bonnet in 2003. (Tanwetamani

and Taharaqo, both rear, belong to the 25th Dynasty)

Sphinx of Taharqo.

The age of the classical Hebrew prophets coincided with the rise of the 25th Dynasty of

Egypt, and thus the Egypt of much prophetic literature was a polity under the dominion of

Cushite pharaohs. Taharqo, the most notable Cushite pharaoh, is mentioned in 2 Kings 19:9

as marching his army into Judah in 701 BCE in defense of King Hezekiah who seemed

powerless before the invading Assyrians. According to 2 Kings 19:35, the Assyrians were

routed by the angel of Yahweh. However, many scholars have argued that the real hero in

the story is the Cushite army whose military success against the Assyrians ensured the

preservation of both Jerusalem and Hezekiah’s throne.

Indeed, iconographic, archaeological, and textual evidence indicate that Cushite-Egyptian

soldiers were defending important Judean towns like Lachish (also mentioned in 2 Kings

19:8) at this critical period. In fact, Hezekiah becomes a vassal of the Cushite Dynasty,

potentially subject to all the terms of vassalage.

Tell Lachish.

Assyrian Reliefs - Judeans of Lachish going into exile.

Following this vein, Cushites are characterized largely as a militaristic people in the Hebrew

Bible. Most references to Cush occur in the context of military engagement (i.e., 2 Chron

14:9-15; Isaiah 20:3–4; Jeremiah 46:9; Ezekiel 30:4–5; 38:5; Nahum 3:9). Isaiah 18:2, for

instance, characterizes the Cushites as a people “feared near and far,” and a “nation mighty

and conquering.” This is consistent with Cushite military reputation in ancient Egypt and the

ancient Near East in general.

Nubian and Egyptian soldiers.

In terms of physical representation, Egyptian iconographic evidence consistently depict

Cushites with dark skin pigmentation, and the Greeks refer to the southerners as Aithiops, or

Ethiopians, meaning “burnt of face.” But far from exhibiting the kind of antipathy toward

blackness we find in the modern context, the physical characteristics of the Cushite evoked

no negative responses: ancient peoples like Egyptians, Assyrians, and Greeks did not

develop a racialized view of identity.

Tribute Scene: Egyptian tribute scene showing Nubians with black and dark brown complexion.

The biblical texts also indicate that Cushites, as a general rule, had dark pigmentation.

Jeremiah 13:23 is notable for its explicit reference to the conspicuous character of the

Cushite skin. And Isaiah 18:2 describes the Cushites as “tall and smooth”—the latter adjective

believed to describe the aesthetic appeal of their shiny black skin.

Notwithstanding such references, in terms of ethnic identity, the biblical text is not primarily

concerned with physical characteristics. Rather, religious concerns governed collective

identity for both Israelites and non-Israelites alike. Israelite collective identity was defined by

its relationship to Yahweh, the God of Israel. This is best captured in the concept of election,

which emphasizes both the sovereign status of Yahweh and the unique relationship with his

people, Israel. In the context of the Hebrew Bible, foreign peoples are evaluated on a moral-

theological basis; that is, in terms of their response to Yahweh and his people Israel.

Going back to Amos 9:7, it is religious concerns that are in view here—not ethnicity, skin

color, or even geography. Israel is compared to Cush because both these two nations will

experience Yahweh’s judgment and salvation. Because of its idolatrous practices, Israel, like

Cush, is a “sinful nation” which Yahweh will uproot (Amos 9:8). That Cush will experience

Yahweh’s judgment is echoed in other passages such as Isaiah 20:4-5, and Zephaniah 2:12:

“You Cushites shall also be slain by my sword.”

Taharqo and the Falcon God.

Yet the Bible is clear that Cush, like Israel, will also experience Yahweh’s salvation: “From

beyond the rivers of Cush, my worshippers, my dispersed ones shall bring my offering”(Zeph

3:10); “Cush shall make haste to stretch out his hands [in offering] to God” (Ps 68:31); “And at

that time gifts shall be brought to Yahweh of Hosts from a tall and smooth people, a people

feared near and far, a mighty and subjugating nation, whose land the rivers divide” (Isa 18:7).

Texts such as these demonstrate that Yahweh’s salvation was not exclusively for Israel but

could also extend to foreign peoples who acknowledged the sovereign rule of the God of

Israel. To that end, it is the theological evaluation of Cush and Cushites that really bears

weight, not their ethnic identity.

Harper’s analysis of the Amos passage teaches us is that the business of negotiating ancient

identities is dangerously fraught, because it is sometimes too convenient for interpreters to

read their own values into biblical texts and contexts. A closer examination of the evidence,

however, suggests that ancient realities do not often fit as easily into the modern

interpreter’s mold.

https://youtu.be/V1T7Tu2v2Ic

Kevin Burrell is Assistant Professor of Old Testament at Burman University, and Research

Fellow in the Department of Old and New Testament, Stellenbosch University.