Tidbits by Rev. Clinton Chisholm

Seasoned scholars know that making sense of names in a foreign language requires great linguistic care otherwise one’s ignorance is easily exposed to the specialist in languages.Dr. Tafari writes “In an insightful paper Africa And Palestine In Antiquity, noted Kemetic scholar Professor Charles Finch argues that Abraham’s connection with the Egyptian sun god Ra is not coincidental, since in Egyptian, Abraham’s name (Ibraim) breaks down into Ib = wisdom, ra = Ra, and im = light (”the wisdom of Ra’s light”).”

This kind of reasoning is popular but problematic. Professor Finch’s alleged argument is worthy of note only if Abraham’s Hebrew name is really Ibraim and is the same in Egyptian.The name Abraham is the new name given to the patriarch in Genesis 17.5 and in that text the meaning of the new name is given as ‘father of many nations’.The English Abraham is correct—Ibraim is incorrect—and is a letter for letter rendition (transliteration) of the Hebrew. So any play on the incorrect Ibraim is already suspect.Further, evidence would need to be adduced that the Egyptian version of Abraham is Ibraim. This evidence is not provided.The assertion then that Abraham’s name breaks down into ‘the wisdom of Ra’s light’ is lacking in linguistic support.Dr. Tafari’s suspect scholarly source led to him say, “Furthermore, the name of Abraham’s son, Isaac, in Hebrew is Ysak, broken down in Egyptian as Ys = place, and akh = offering by fire. As illustrated in the Genesis story of Abraham’s near sacrifice of Isaac (foreshadowing the Christ), Ys-akh is connected to Ra by his relation to fire, and the lamb is his sacrificial alter ego. And the name Israel – taken by Jacob after “wrestling with an angel” – is broken down in Egyptian to Ys = place, ra = Ra, and ir = creation (‘el’ and ‘ir’ being interchangeable here) – hence ‘the place of Ra’s creation’.Isaac in Hebrew is not Ysak but Yishaq and the name means ‘he laughs’ (see Gen. 17.17, 19:21.6). Israel in Hebrew is Yisrael and means ‘he struggles with God’ (see Gen. 32.28). The meaning of a name in the ancient Near East must arise from the primary source mentioning the name and not from some speculating scholar or other source. 

Those Afrocentrists who assert (often without supporting evidence) that the ancient Hebrews derived their major doctrines from Egypt arising from the Hebrews’ collective presence in Egypt for over 400 years cannot easily go on to raise questions on the reality of the biblical exodus. If an Afrocentrist critic of the Judaeo-Christian faith concedes the presence of Hebrews in Egypt for any extended period then the question arises, did they ever leave en masse? If not what happened to them as a people group in Egypt and where is the evidence for the answer to this critical query? Let it be clear, the critics cannot have it both ways, it is either presence in Egypt and thus access to direct Egyptian influence on the socio-religious traditions of the Hebrews with openness to the reality of an exodus from Egypt or serious doubts about the biblical exodus from Egypt along with doubts about a collective Hebrew presence in Egypt and loss of the argument for access to direct Egyptian influence on the socio-religious traditions of the Hebrews. But it cannot be both. Other permutations and combinations may seem possible but they all fail to add to the two-fold option I have mentioned.For instance, as was attempted at the Nile Valley forum by Bro. Neter, once you argue that the Hebrews got their main ideas from living in Egypt then mention of the Hebrews as possibly being the Habiru/Apiru/Hapiru or the Hyksos is to introduce a red herring. Indeed it is a sign of intellectual desperation when an individual in the same presentation mentions both the Habiru and the Hyksos as options to confirm the presence of the Hebrews in Egypt—a point which has never been in doubt from the Judaeo-Christian side!! The time frame suggested from the documents of the ancient Near East that mention the Habiru and the Hyksos put the dastardly activities of the Habiru in Canaan during the reign of Akhenaten’s father, Amenophis III (1390-1352 BC) and even beyond Akhenaten’s reign (1352-1336 BC). Britannica online Encyclopaedia says the Hyksos (Egyptian for ‘foreign rulers’) “…settled in northern Egypt during the 18th century BC. In about 1630 they seized power, and Hyksos kings ruled Egypt as the 15th dynasty (c. 1630–1521 BC)”.Neither the odious picture of the Habirus tactics in Canaan nor the portrait of the Hyksos as foreign rulers in Egypt fits what the Bible says about the early Hebrews in Canaan and Egypt.Critics who demand Egyptological evidence for the biblical exodus must ponder the words of Kenneth Kitchen, ancient Near Eastern specialist, Archaeologist and Egyptologist, “The Delta [where the Hebrews operated] is an alluvial fan of mud deposited through many millennia by the annual flooding of the Nile; it has no source of stone within it…So those who squawk intermittently ‘No trace of the Hebrews has ever been found’ (so, of course, no exodus!) are wasting their breath.The mud hovels of brickfield slaves and humble cultivators have long since gone back to their mud origins, never to be seen again.Even stone structures (such as temples) hardly survive, in striking contrast to sites in the cliff-enclosed valley of Upper Egypt in the south.” (On the Reliability of the Old Testament, 2003, p.246)Pointing to the paucity of even written records from Delta sites Kitchen provides another sobering comment on the same page “And as pharaohs never monumentalize defeats on temple walls, no record of the successful exit of a large bunch of foreign slaves (with loss of a full chariot squadron) would ever have been memorialized by any king, in temples in the Delta or anywhere else.”

Dear Editor,My friend Dr. Ikeal Tafari has written two pieces in your newspaper raising questions on the historical roots of Israel. Unfortunately the main source he seems to be drawing on is Gary Greenberg’s book The Bible Myth: African Origins of the Jewish People. I say unfortunately because Greenberg (whose work I have scrutinised carefully) makes the popular mistakes of an amateur—assertion without supporting evidence, hasty conclusions without consideration of alternative explanatory options and an inadequate grasp or knowledge of the breadth of literatures, languages and artefacts of the ancient Near East (the world of the Old Testament).For anyone afflicted with Greenberg’s contagious disease the antidote I recommend is a healthy dose of reading anything by Kenneth Kitchen, a world-renowned specialist in the field of Egyptology, Archaeology and ancient Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, especially his 2003 book On the Reliability of the Old Testament. If you are a responsible reader expecting documented sources of every major idea you will be frustrated by Greenberg but delighted above measure by Kitchen.Dr. Tafari, in his article of February 11, alleges that Greenberg argues cogently—this is either supreme kindness or credulity— that “The roots of the Jewish people are in 14^th century B.C. Africa during the reign of the fiercely monotheistic pharaoh Akhenaten. Moses was the chief priest of the pharaoh’s revolutionary Aten cult…” Moses fled Egypt after Akhenaten’s death and returned with Shechemites after Horemheb’s passing to attempt a coup which “brought the nation to the brink of civil war and ended with a negotiated truce, guaranteeing the insurgents safe passage out of the country – the Exodus!” Give me a break!! Where is the evidence for this hypothesis, in any Egyptian source? Greenberg most certainly does not provide any. If Dr. Tafari believes that this is a cogent argument when does he believe the Exodus happened? Why is this question important?Well, Akhenaten ruled in Egypt from 1352-1336 BC while Haremhab’s reign was 1323-1295 BC. There are only two viable options for the biblical Exodus among scholars today: either a 15^th century BC date (approx. 1447 BC, so Alfred Hoerth, Bruce Waltke, et al) or a 13^th century BC date (approx. 1290 BC, so Donald Redford, Kenneth Kitchen et al). If the earlier date for the Exodus is correct then Moses predated Akhenaten by almost a century so that leaves only the later date as a live option for Tafari/Greenberg unless of course Greenberg can dream up another baseless novel hypothesis.Can you imagine a former chief priest of the Aten cult claiming to have received revelation from another deity called Yahweh, which forbids making and worshipping images of the deity (Ex. 20.4-5)?Bear in mind too that Moses, while addressing the people of Israel, refers to this other deity Yahweh as “our God” (Heb. elohenu Deut. 5.2). Does this sound plausible or credible to you? Notice that critics of the Bible keep asking for corroboration of what the Bible says but they don’t usually make the same request concerning Egyptian or other documents. Your respectfully, Clinton Chisholm (Rev.) February 19, 2008.