Asar Imhotep is the author of the
Books “The Bakala of North America (The Living Suns of Vitality)”
and the E-Book “Passion of Christ or Passion of Osiris”
(The Kongo Origins of the Jesus Myth).
He is a regular participant of "Ghetto Scholarship"
on the "Black Means Death" Squad.
I had my first exchange with him back in August 2010
on a BlogtalkRadio show, which can be heard in the video (at the bottom)
from the start to minute 12:50.
The second exchange happened on another radio show.
Meaning of the word Hebrew:
Let’s first look at the definition of the word:
Online
Etymology Dictionary: late O.E., from O.Fr. Ebreu, from L. Hebraeus, from Gk. Hebraios,
from Aramaic 'ebhrai, corresponding to Heb. 'ibhri "an Israelite,"
lit. "one from the other side," in reference to the River
Euphrates, or perhaps simply signifying "immigrant;" from
'ebher "region on the other or opposite side." Derogatory
slang shortening Hebe is first recorded 1932.
Britannica
Encyclopaedia: Hebrew, any member of an ancient northern Semitic people that were
the ancestors of the Jews. Historians use the term Hebrews to designate
the descendants of the patriarchs of the Old Testament (i.e., Abraham,
Isaac, and so on) from that period until their conquest of Canaan (Palestine)
in the late 2nd millennium bc. Thenceforth these people are referred
to as Israelites until their return from the Babylonian Exile in the
late 6th century bc, from which time on they became known as Jews.
In the Bible the patriarch Abraham is referred to a single time as the
ivri, ...
Webster's
Dictionary: Definition of HEBREW
1 a : the Semitic language of the ancient Hebrews
b : any of various later forms of this language
2 : a member of or descendant from one of a group of northern Semitic
peoples including the Israelites; especially : israelite
Origin of HEBREW
Middle English Ebreu, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin Hebraeus, from
Latin, adjective, from Greek Hebraios, from Aramaic ?Ebrai
First Known Use: 13th century
All 3 meanings define the Hebrews as Israelites.
Therefore, Hebrew does not simply mean “nomad” but Israelite,
besides the word “nomad” doesn’t even appear in the
definitions.
I doubt that anyone will argue whether or not the term
“Israelite” is to be considered as a people of the Theological
Bible story. So claiming that there was “Hebrews in Kemet”
is not just alleging the existence of “random” nomadic people,
but it implies the presence of the so-called chosen people of Yahweh
(Jehovah) in ancient Egypt, as narrated in the Old Testament (Torah
otherwise called Pentateuch).
In the first exchange (July 2010) I was surprised to
hear Asar Imhotep saying that the “Hebrews are Egyptians”
(minute 02:00) so I questioned him on that asking for records…
Asar Imhotep then proceeded to do some linguistic "demonstration",
ultimately saying that the “Apiru” (Hapiru) is the same
word as “Eber” and that the later was a general term that
means “nomad”…
I will note, but not comment on the claim that
“the 42 nomes of Egypt were 42 different ethnic groups”
(10:12).
As for the second exchange (April 2011, from minute
12:50), the disagreement (or “debate” if you will) centers
around the same issue, since I previously heard Asar Imhotep make similar
claims repeatedly on the same show, I took the chance to ask again for
clarification while I had the opportunity.
You will notice that there was a slight misunderstanding; because I
was calling from overseas, I misheard “Afaru” instead of
“Apiru”, even though I asked twice for clarification on
the spelling I wasn’t heard on that detail.
So I though that Asar Imhotep had some “new” type of claim,
this time “Afaru” being Hebrews and I was trying to find
more about these alledged “Afaru” but little did I know
that we were talking about the same “Apiru”.
This leads us back to the 1st exchange we had, because
my position is that words have a meaning and that meanings are not interchangeable
just like letters through different languages (“b” &
“p”, “p” & “f” or “p”
and “v”, “r” & “l”)…
Thus Hebrews cannot be defined outside the Biblical literature (Theology,
not History).
So if anyone tries to affirmatively argue the Historicity of Hebrews,
this cannot be done while disregarding the accounts of the Bible (Exodus
narrative). On the other hand, if the Biblical narrative is not Historical,
how and why would their protagonists be?
Considering that different populations have more or
less similar words to denote “nomads” (or pastoral people)
is not a problem, especially on the same continent and a particularly
defined area (Northern part of Africa). However it has been demonstrated
that the word Hebrew itself does not simply mean “nomad”.
Further note:
Can we accept claims from scholars & writers (Historians, Doctors,
Linguists) who would make linguistic comparisons from a Theological
(non historical) people and apply it to later (Historical) populations?
Despite their alleged academic, scholarly and “impartial”
methodology, are we sure that their eventual faith don’t get in
the way of their reasoning and claims?
Can we accept a people’s existence, on linguistic
basis, over physical evidence?
Would it be surprising that different populations (ethnic
groups if you will) being Judeo-Christianized and Islamic or not would
have words in their own language corresponding to the people mentioned
in the Bible (Torah & New Testament) and the Qur’an?
Can anybody re-define words (their meaning)
in order to suit their claim?
As far as I’m concerned, one word can answer
these 4 questions: NO.
CONCLUSION: “Apiru” might mean
“nomad”, but “Hebrew” don’t mean nomad.
Claiming that there were nomads in ancient Egypt is valid, but claiming
that there was Hebrews in ancient Egypt on the pretence that “Hebrew”
means “nomad” is invalid.
Hebrews denotes a specific type of people, and their story is so far
a matter of Theology.
Before arguing the presence of the Hebrews anywhere
in time, their historicity must be established first. Establishing the
presence of nomads does not establish the historicity of Hebrews, just
like establishing the historicity of Pontius Pilate does not prove the
historicity of Jesus Christ (Yeshua). Acknowledging the existence of
Christians in the year 2001 does not prove the existence of Jesus Christ
in the 1st century ace.
Advice for the neophytes:
History cannot be dealt without Archaeology, on your Path to
Thoroughness you should always seek in order of preference
(if available) the primary source (original), the oldest copy, the oldest
reference.
* Your record/copy/reference should be as close as
possible to the period in question.
* Reading a book is not “doing research” (homework), checking
the references is a start.
* Be very cautious when people make claims then ask you to look for
the evidences. (i.e. tell you to read a whole book)
* Be very cautious when people make long replies without answering the
question.
* Better than quoting authors is the ability to cite primary sources.
* Never make a rule out of an exception.
* One of the most clever thing to say is “I don’t know”.
4W’s : Who, When, What, Where?
How & Why tend to be subjective...
Shaka-Ndugu-KMT (www.afrostyly.com/english)
April 14, 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.
(quote)
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
pitiful.
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
Kemet.
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
text.
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.
