Asar Imhotep: “Based upon my research, these (Hebrews) are African people
who migrated into the middle east, whose some of their stories, you
know, became a part of a tradition that, you know I’m saying,
was later formed as Hebrew-Israelites”
The following exchange show serious discrepancies in
Brother Ankh: “What research
is that? […]” Asar Imhotep: “We have to separate the people,
the historical people from their mythology […] the problem is
that people try to identify the Hebrews based on their mythology” Brother Ankh: “Based upon their book? I’m
just saying we’re trying to identify them based upon their book.
How about that?” Asar Imhotep: “What you have to understand
is that the people had to exist in order for them to even write the
book, regardless of how you feel they had to exist, you know to write
the book […] Whatever argument anybody’s trying to make
that these people didn’t exist, you have to argue; ok who wrote
“ So they wrote the book, you know, regardless if all of the information
is fake or not”
So Asar first said that the “historical people”
must be separated from their mythology. Then he said that the people
had to exist in order for them to write the book. But the problem is
that not only “the book” is mythology itself, but that argument
is invalid for the simple reason that a book is not evidence of the
historicity of a people, especially when the book date from much later
time than the alleged people themselves.
Furthermore, who says that the Hebrews wrote the book?
I think that “who wrote this?” is a good question. What
are the oldest records of the book?
What’s their date? What’s the language of the oldest record? Would it make sense for anyone to argue that Santa Claus had to exist
because stories are written about him?
Asar Imhotep makes another invalid argument
for his claim: “We got to remember that a lot of ancient Egyptian writings
is a bunch of myths, that does not mean that the ancient Egyptians did
The ancient Egyptians have contemporaneous records
about themselves (names, dates, places); however contemporaneous is
the key word. When we talk about the ancient Egyptians, we don’t
talk about any alleged oral tradition that ended up being written hundreds
of years after the described events. The ancient Egyptian records were
written during the time of the protagonists, at the geographic location
were they lived and in their language (at least writing).
Asar Imhotep follows by saying: “The best way that I can articulate the whole Hebrew situation,
is just like the case of the folks in Louisiana in New Orleans […]”
New Orleans is an example dealing with migration, however
it is an “extreme” one in the sense that we are dealing
with an apparent natural disaster, but a catastrophe nevertheless, indeed
an event that rarely happens (especially to this magnitude).
Furthermore, the historicity of the people of New Orleans was and is
still well established before their relocation. Their
actual relocation is also documented, contrary to the Exodus story of
When it comes to the Hebrews, some records should be
produced in order to argue their presence in the land of Kemet (ancient
Egypt) first. Not just to single out some “nomads”
and conclude that they are actually Hebrews. Since “they had to
exist in order to write the book” then their story should be consistent
with the book, miracles or “myths” aside, just like the
distinction is made between the ancient Egyptian’s story and their
I will add for the record that most of the ancient
Egyptian myths deal with creation stories and after-life matters or
“death” if you will. Their day to day society’s life
is extremely well documented and is not questioned because of eventual
“miracles” happening all throughout the years. The temples,
tombs, obelisks, houses, boats, clothes, jewelry, pottery, funerary
and most important human remains speak for themselves…
Giving a 21st century event only to allege the possibility
of a similar kind of mass movement 3000 years previous just does not
support the allegation.
Speculating is not demonstrating…
Interestingly enough, Ankh later asks:
“ Do you have an archaeological find showing these people? […]
Asar Imhotep responds:
“There’s no archaeological evidence that says these people
spoke Hebrew” Ankh: “No, no, no, that’s not what I’m
talking about […]”
“ So you can’t back it up with some archaeology, just linguistic?” Asar Imhotep: “Yeah, it’s a linguistic
argument” […] “A lot of the same deities that you
have in the Hebrew Bible, you have in the Yoruba tradition of Ifa. You
have to explain how the Yoruba people all the way in Nigeria had the
same deities […]”
First of all, is the Hebrew Bible older than the Greek
Bible? Wasn’t it in written in Greek first then later translated
into Hebrew? (By “Hebrew” I don’t mean “Aramaic”)
Couldn’t we explain it the same way that people all the way in
South America have Santería with its influence
of Catholicism (“syncretic” religion)?
Do the Yoruba people really have the same deities than the Hebrew Bible
or their deities have the same attributes?
As for the Cain and Abel story, a linguistic “demonstration”
was made by Asar Imhotep previously (other date) on the same show. But
the fact that some people through Africa had stories of conflicts between
agricultural and pastoral people dos not mean that they are either ancestors
or descendants of Hebrews. Neither does it make the Hebrew story any
more historical nor relevant. So when Asar talks about “ […] these stories of Cain & Abel, in a
sense, that you find this stuff indigenously in Nigeria. And
you have to explain how their indigenous stories ended in the Bible
with these Hebrews.”
Once again having similar stories does not mean that there is a connection,
especially dealing with agricultural and cattle matters in a time period
where it was kind what money is to us today. There was surely stories
and conflict of that nature, just like stories of brothers fighting
and/or killing one another…
I am alarmed at this “Theological History”
going on these days,
within one week I dealt with “Talmudic (homosexual) scholarship”
(Fraud Bye-Bye), “Biblical (lame) scholarship” (Dr. Back
Down), and now with “Torah (void) scholarship”.
One saying goes “you can’t
get something out of nothing”, well Asar Imhotep gives us a clue
as to why his scholarship is so empty and speculative:
“my main focus in my studies has always been religious,
because the religion is something that people hold on to the hardest,
folks is not gonna get rid of their religion, and so the deities, their
rituals and things of this nature, they are testament to their earlier
History and how they approach the divine […] people
don’t get rid of their names for the creator […]”
It is wrong to say that “folks
is not gonna get rid of their religion” because at least the Trans-Atlantic
(European Judeo-Christian) slave trade, just like the Sub-Saharan (Arab-Muslim)
slave trade are clear examples of people changing their religion, forcefully
or not. It is also wrong to say that people’s
religion is a testament to their “earlier History”, Theology
is not History. People’s account of creation whether it’s
the planet earth or the whole universe (Cosmogony/Cosmology) and the
subsequent events (alleged descendance) is in no way a testament of
their history, nor other people’s history for that matter (some
people indeed do convert to other religions, which would obviously not
be “their story”).
History is dealt with mainly via archaeology, written
records (papyrus, stones, wood), architecture (temples, houses, various
structures) human remains (DNA profiling) and other methods such as
carbon dating. Oral traditions are taken into consideration, but they
are not “evidences” on their own. Linguistic alone is neither
Once again, the fact that the story of Santa Claus can be found in many
(if not most) cultures and plenty of different languages don’t
make it any more true than Superman.
Just Like I hinted in my
first article about Asar Imhotep’s claims, the problem is
that many historians are religious (i.e.: Christian, Muslim, Jewish)
and even though scholars are “supposed” to be impartial
and to stick to academic methodology, that’s only in theory.
Field researchers are clear about the fact that they are digging the
desert looking for findings to corroborate “the scriptures”,
especially since they are well funded to do so.
But historians, scholars and researchers often pretend to have a “scientific”
approach, however their faith tend to get in the way of their claims
For others it’s not a matter of faith but financial gain, knowing
that if they accommodate believers of the Abrahamic religions, they
have more changes of selling their work.
Other factors might come into play, for instance having spent years,
a decade or more in a belief system (religion) only to realize the inaccuracy
of the doctrines can be quite challenging, even disturbing. Then rather
than just admitting that one did believe in things that are simply not
true, some people will attempt to “make something out of nothing”.
Ego can be a trip sometimes…
Picture a pastor who’s been teaching the Bible for 30 years, if
he was to realize that the stories of Christianity are fictional, would
he tell people that for the last 3 decades he was wrong? Will he say
that all this time he was teaching false stories? And considering that
he was making a living teaching those scriptures, will he settle for
less? I invite the readers to ask Asar Imhotep “where you
Asar Imhotep weak scholarship
Asar Imhotep even claims that “Hebrew is an African
language” “part of the so-called Afro-Asiatic group of languages”…
Going further on a previously similar claim, Asar states:
“You’ll see that all of these names in the Bible for God
are the same names for God in West Africa. How did they have the same
names for God? You know, because in the earlier days they both come
out of the same speech community”.
April 25, 2011
Asar Imhotep : "Allah
is actually in the Egyptian texts"
"Ogoun is Cain"
"Abel relates to the word Fulani"
"Abel and Fulani are the same word, they have the same
"Afar people [...] these are your original Hebrews"
"Then you have their own testimony that they lived in Egypt for
400 years, whether it's true or not that's beyond the point"
"Now it's my argument, in terms of the Judaic tradition
that these were disgruntled ancient Egyptian priests who had a different
ideology, a different way of understanding something that just didn't
agree with the general consensus in Egypt, and decided to create their
own thing [...]"
(www.afrostyly.com/english) May 09, 2011
Update December 6, 2014
Transparency. You said from your own
mouth that you would write a paper (more than once if I am not mistaken),
while I did write to refute your irresponsible claims and you have
failed to keep your word since 2011. Do not be surprised if you are
labelled a fraud by your "peers".
This is not personal, I've done the same thing with Dr. Wesley Muhammad
who also backed down from the public debate that he challenged me
to and later agreed to on the phone and via email.
Therefore you are not alone.
You never had the inteliigence and the integrity to address any text
to me following our specific conversation. Which shows the difference
between me and you.
I am glad that you have responded, because you will not be able to
say that you were unaware of my 2 articles refuting your claims. And
by the way, one of them (at least) was once read live on the air during
one of the Amen-Ra Squad show.
You can take neophytes lightly, but you had a life lesson and an academic
demonstration of what happens when you are being disingenuous with
an logical researcher that has an efficient method, and a common sense
that you are lacking.
Asar Imhotep: “What you have to understand is that the people
had to exist in order for them to even write the book, regardless
of how you feel they had to exist, you know to write the book […]
Whatever argument anybody’s trying to make that these people
didn’t exist, you have to argue; ok who wrote this?” […]
“ So they wrote the book, you know, regardless if all of the
information is fake or not”
(end of quote)
You are spreading misinformation and falsehood to our people, and
you don't even have the integrity to stand by your own words, I could
say "shame on you" but it is to the point where it's getting
In your own words: "you are not making any sense".
For the record, I deal with historical facts scholastically, so if
you ever in your life get enough courage to be responsible, then you
will know better than expecting a fellow scholar to be aware of your
untitled "material in which certain claims were made". This
is not a scholastic response, and I am not asking for any, I am merely
being cautious enough to notify you, so that if I ever address your
nonsencial so-called scholarship, I won't be speculating.
You'll know better next time you claim that there were Hebrews in
You'll know better next time you claim that the Hebrews were Egyptians.
You'll know better next time you claim that Allah is in the Egyptian
Allah is an Arabic word, the contraction of al-Ilah, meaning “the
God”, at the time of Ancient Egypt, the Arabic language wasn't
in existence yet.
I have been kind enough and patient enough, from now on every communication
that I have with you, including this Facebook message exchange will
be made in public.
Consider yourself warned.