The idea that Jerusalem, the biblical city, could be located in the Congo in Africa is problematic for several reasons. This article will explain why the Congo is an unlikely candidate and why Ethiopia might be a better fit for the ancient city's location.
Geographic Problems
1. Distance from Egypt:
The journey from Egypt to the Congo is about 2,215 miles. The Bible suggests that the Israelites traveled a much shorter distance when they left Egypt. Ancient Egypt never extended into the Congo, so the idea of the Israelites traveling that far is not realistic.
Even if we stretch the boundaries of the Egyptian Empire southward to Meroe (in modern-day Sudan), it still makes Ethiopia a more plausible candidate. Meroe is relatively close to Ethiopia, and such an extension aligns better with the biblical narrative of the exodus and subsequent settlement.
Historical Issues
2. Roman Logistics:
The Romans were excellent at moving and supplying their armies, but the Congo's dense jungles would have been nearly impossible for them to navigate. Even in the 1800s, the Congo was considered unexplored because of its thick brush. John Reader's book "Africa: A Biography of the Continent" highlights how difficult it is to travel through the Congo, even with modern technology. Adrian Goldsworthy's book "The Complete Roman Army" explains that the Romans needed clear supply lines, which would have been impossible in the Congo.
Lack of Evidence
3. Archaeological Evidence:
There are no substantial archaeological findings in the Congo that suggest it ever had a city like Jerusalem. Major cities usually leave behind ruins, artifacts, and records, but none of these have been found in the Congo. Some claims suggest that Paleo-Hebrew script, often referred to as a Canaanite script, was found in the Congo. However, even if this is true, it does not necessarily indicate that Jerusalem was located there. The Paleo-Hebrew script was used by various groups in ancient times, not exclusively by the Israelites. This means that inscriptions discovered in this script cannot automatically be attributed to the Israelites or the city of Jerusalem.
Meroe and Its Connection to Ancient Egypt
4. Meroe's Pyramids and Influence:
Meroe, located in modern-day Sudan, was an important city with strong ties to ancient Egypt. The city is renowned for its pyramids, which bear similarities to those of ancient Egypt. These pyramids suggest a significant cultural and political connection between Meroe and Egypt. There were periods when the influence of Egypt extended southward, encompassing regions that are now part of Sudan. This connection indicates that Meroe could have been part of the Egyptian Empire, aligning with the notion that the region had substantial Egyptian influence and control. The numerous pyramids in Meroe serve as evidence of its importance within the Egyptian realm.
Ethiopia as a Better Option
5. Proximity and Accessibility:
Ethiopia is much closer to Egypt, making it a more realistic location for the journey described in the Bible. Ethiopia also has access to the Indian Ocean through the Red Sea, which would have made it an important trade hub, fitting the description of Jerusalem as a key city.
6. Roman Presence in Ethiopia:
Archaeologists have found Roman coins in the highlands of Ethiopia, showing that the Romans had a presence there. Stuart Munro-Hay's book "Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity" discusses the connections between the Roman Empire and the Aksumite Empire in Ethiopia. Additionally, Fattovich and Bard's work in "The Archaeology of the Ancient Red Sea Port of Adulis, Eritrea" (Journal of Field Archaeology, 2001) further supports the presence of Romans in the region, highlighting the strategic importance of Ethiopian trade routes.
7. Biblical Travel Narrative:
Another supporting evidence comes from the biblical account of Yosef and Mariam traveling to Egypt. In Matthew 2:13-14, it states: "When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Yosef in a dream. 'Get up,' he said, 'take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.' So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt." If Jerusalem were in the Congo, this journey would have been over 2,000 miles, which is implausible. However, if we consider Meroe as part of the Egyptian Empire's boundaries, the journey from Ethiopia to Egypt becomes more realistic and aligns better with the biblical narrative.
Misinterpretation of Paleo-Hebrew Script
8. Paleo-Hebrew Script Context:
There have been claims that Paleo-Hebrew script was found in the caves of the Congo. While this script, often referred to as a Canaanite script, was used by various groups and tribes in the ancient Near East, its discovery in the Congo does not necessarily indicate that Jerusalem was located there. The Paleo-Hebrew script evolved from the Phoenician script and was used by many different groups, not exclusively by the biblical Israelites.
9. Historical Context:
Canaanite Origin: The Paleo-Hebrew script evolved from the Phoenician script, a derivative of earlier Canaanite scripts used in the region that includes modern-day Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan. The term "Canaanite" refers to the people and cultures in this region before the rise of the distinct Israelite identity.
Usage by Various Groups: Many groups in the Canaanite region adopted and adapted the script for their own languages, including the Phoenicians, Moabites, Edomites, and others. The Israelites also used this script, which evolved into the Paleo-Hebrew script for writing Hebrew.
10. Implications for Discoveries:
Inscriptions and Context: The context of where the inscriptions are found is crucial for determining their origin and affiliation. The location, accompanying artifacts, and historical layers help scholars identify whether the text is likely Israelite or from another Canaanite group.
Linguistic Features: Linguistic analysis can reveal differences in language use, dialects, or particular words that might indicate whether an inscription is Israelite or from another group.
Cultural and Religious Indicators: Inscriptions that include specific cultural or religious references, such as names of deities, practices, or terminology unique to the Israelites, can help identify Israelite texts. References to Yahuah, for example, would indicate an Israelite origin, while references to other deities could suggest a different group. Within the African map by Allen H. Godbey, he points out that an area in East Africa near Aksum was where the inhabitants practiced Yahwism, further giving credibility to Ethiopia being the location of the true Jerusalem.
Conclusion
The notion that the Congo could be the true location of Jerusalem is highly improbable due to geographic, historical, and logistical reasons. The vast distance from Egypt, the impenetrable jungles, and the lack of Roman logistical capability to maintain a presence there all argue against this theory. Ethiopia, with its closer proximity to Egypt, historical connections, and strategic location, offers a far more credible alternative. The presence of significant cultural and political centers like Meroe, with its pyramids and ties to ancient Egypt, further supports Ethiopia as a more credible candidate for the true location of Jerusalem. Additionally, the biblical account of Yosef and Mariam traveling to Egypt strengthens the argument for a location closer to Egypt, making Ethiopia a more viable candidate.
Cited Works:
- Reader, John. *Africa: A Biography of the Continent*. Vintage, 1998.
- Goldsworthy, Adrian. *The Complete Roman Army*. Thames & Hudson, 2003.
- Munro-Hay, Stuart. *Aksum: An African Civilization of Late Antiquity*. Edinburgh University Press, 1991.
- Fattovich, Rodolfo, and Bard, Kathryn A. *The Archaeology of the Ancient Red Sea Port of Adulis, Eritrea*. Journal of Field Archaeology, 2001. - Godbey, Allen H. Lost Tribes a Myth: Suggestions Towards Rewriting Hebrew History. 1930.
- The Holy Bible, Matthew 2:13-14.
My points below address statements made by some readers: 1) The distance from Egypt to the Congo is vast, approximately 2,215 miles. This journey would have traversed extremely challenging terrain, including dense jungles, swamps, and rivers. The logistical difficulties of such a journey are significant.
2) The Egyptian empire, even at its peak, never extended into the Congo. Most historical records place the southern boundaries of ancient Egypt around modern-day Sudan. While small groups of people or animals may have moved between regions over centuries, maintaining a consistent and viable route for significant travel and communication between Egypt and the Congo on a scale that would support a city like Jerusalem is highly improbable.
3) Roman logistics required well-maintained roads, bridges…