Customer Reviews

Africa and the Bible

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I'm no scholar - but this is my fourth year of slowly, seriously studying the Bible. I'm not claiming the wisdom of Solomon, but I am quite sure I am not an idiot. This book borders on hogwash (I am being kind - there were some nice photographs). The title IS deceiving as the other reviewer said. I thought it would tie the entire region (modern day Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Turkey - for the most part) together. I tried to stick with this book, but couldn't. "Solomon wouldn't sleep with the Queen of Sheba until she shaved her legs" (paraphrase). Really? Are you kidding me? That's just a taste of the drivel in this tome.

There were ships and caravans in those days. Why is it not possible that the Peoples of this time did not travel, explore or mingle? The Bible I read talks of Nubians, etc. Christians are to go by the Bible, period. It's the inspired Word of GOD given to man - period. If you don't believe this, you are not Christian period. We are to go by what THE BIBLE SAYS. I don't need to claim black power to the 9th degree, but I don't think Jesus was a blue-eyed blonde as the world would have us think. This region had all peoples of all colors - mostly darker colors. Sorry, Africa played a part as did Greece. I don't even care to continue this review I think I made my point.

GOD bless!!

Yamauchi book has a bold interesting title "Africans and the Bible" that may at first attract African-Americans or those interested in the topic of Africans in the Bible, after reading some may or may not be shocked. Sadly a large focus of the book is geared more to Africans NOT being in the Bible as to Africans actually in the Bible because of this I believe many people may walk away from this read disappointed;however,followers of Mary Lefkowitz book "Not out of Africa" will surely see this book as good hard objective scholarship. Yamauchi can be praised for highlighting some of the Nubian and Ethiopian Kings like Taharka of Egypt's 25th Dynasty and the Candaces who are mentioned in the Bible, in fact it is a statue of Taharka that is on the cover of his book,but I don't feel Yamauchi goes far enough. Yamauchi is also credited for approaching the Afrocentric debate and at times he sounds as if he trying to present an unbiased point of view when discussing the race of the Egyptians(he includes Martin Bernals Black Athena arguments), but after one looks at the introduction and checks his footnotes you see that Yamauchi sympathizes with the views of the African American classical scholar Frank Snowden when it comes to the race of the Egyptians. Frank Snowden is a conservative African American scholar like Henry Louis Gates of Harvard fame, he believes the Egyptians should not be considered black. Both Snowden and Gates have been rewarded for their beliefs by many white academics and are often quoted by them in books and applauded as the "best" in their field. Incidentally many African Americans see both Snowden and Gates as being "sell-outs" and "pawns in the game." I personally believe the term "Black" is superficial and divides the people of Africa in a way that Europeans are not divided;for example, Swedes and Russians look different but both are considered "white" AngloSaxons and Greeks look different but both are considered "white" strangely there is this double standard when it comes to Africa. West Africans, North Africans,and East africans are arbitarily divided and this subjective double standard wrongfully robs the African people of a shared kinship. The reason for the preceived African "racial" diversity is that genetically Africans are more diverse than any other "race" because they have been living on the planet longer than most "races" and have had more time to develop variety (see the work of Shomarka Keita compared to the Loring Brace study) Africans are polytypical with variable "racial" features found as one travels throughout the continent;however, unlike Yamauchi or Snowden I believe they are all biologically related and at their essence and cultural core they are all African that is not Asian or European. Looking at Africa under this scope would Yamauchi include Ramesses II as an African in the Bible? If Yamauchi wanted to write a book that would not push the envelope and get him academically blacklisted by his peers he wrote the perfect book. If Yamauchi wanted to be original and break the academic mold by asking the tough questions maybe a few of these questions would be on his list.

1.Based on the anthropological finds of the Leakey family and recent research in Mitochondrial DNA and knowledge of natural selection in tropical climates what color does Yamauchi believe Adam and Eve were and why did he leave them out of this work?based on objective archaelogical evidence where would Eden be located and would the answer offend the fragile sensibilities of biblical academics?

2.The Genealogy of Noahs son Ham list four sons Punt, Canaan, Egypt and Kush. Does Yamauchi not find it strange that the Hebrew writers listed Punt(Somalia) Egypt(Misraim) and Kush(Nubia) as brothers now logically what might this kinship apply in a racial sense?

3. Yamauchi says that Simone of Cyrene could not have been black because Cyrene was a Greek colony in North Africa is Yamauchi to have us believe that Cyrene was homogenous I know of not one colony in North America, Africa, Australia, or Asia that was ever homogenous, why couldn't Thomas be black?

4. Yamauchi believes that the Queen of Sheba or Saba could not have been black because her kingdom was in Arabia. Who is to say blacks especially after looking at the proximity, did not live in ancient Arabia? or the Middle East for that matter, in fact records from the Assyrian temples show us the Elamites a Black people who did indeed live in the Middles East. Also there are the black Dravidians or Dasas of the Hindu Vedas from ancient India(Asia) before the Aryan invasions and for a contemporary source there is Prince Bander of Saudi Arabia if Sheba looked like the Prince she would not be black?....Yamauchi's book gives us some basic facts so in that sense it is good but this book could have been way more interesting if it would dare to ask the unpopular questions.

A lot of settling of AFrica of different people. It is very hard to follow, but I will keep on trying.

I thought that this book would cover africa's role In the bible while discussing eurocentrism and afrocentrism.It turn's out that It Is mainly a criticism of afrocentrism.If one has a probelm with afrocentrism then we have to go back to the first lie which started with eurocentrism and go from there.I would have liked to read more about african and bible history, and If was going to be criticism's(afrocentrism and eurocentrism) then let them be discussed equal.This notion about race Is a modern thing and did not exist among the ancient's.People at that time were more concerned about nation.It was decided long after that(In modern times) certain groups belonged to this race and to that race to justify racism.If It were possible to go back In a time machine many people would be shocked at what they see.The people In history- Cleopatra, Moses, Ramses,Hannibal,Jesus looked nothing like the Images we have become use to seeing of them.Let's face It, the Images In movies and pictures are wrong,wrong,wrong.We can only move foward when look at history objectively as It was,and without our modern bias.

This is yet another good book which shatters the many sordid lies and misrepresentations of "afrocentrism".

Mary Lefkowitz also documents the same things quite well in her books. I

highly recommend reading her books to understand the truth about this bizarre social disease called afrocentrism.