Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History

Not Out of Africa
Was Greek Culture Stolen from Africa?
Modern Myth vs. Ancient History

Excerpted from her book: Not Out of Africa: How Afrocentrism Became an Excuse to Teach Myth as History

In the fall of 1991 I was asked to write a review-article for The New Republic about Martin Bernal's Black Athena and its relation to the Afrocentrist movement. The assignment literally changed my life. Once I began to work on the article I realized that here was a subject that needed all the attention, and more, that I could give to it. Although I had been completely unaware of it, there was in existence a whole literature that denied that the ancient Greeks were the inventors of democracy, philosophy, and science. There were books in circulation that claimed that Socrates and Cleopatra were of African descent, and that Greek philosophy had actually been stolen from Egypt. Not only were these books being read and widely distributed; some of these ideas were being taught in schools and even in universities.

Ordinarily, if someone has a theory which involves a radical departure from what the experts have professed, he is expected to defend his position by providing evidence in its support. But no one seemed to think it was appropriate to ask for evidence from the instructors who claimed that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt.

Normally, if one has a question about a text that another instructor is using, one simply asks why he or she is using that book. But since this conventional line of inquiry was closed to me, I had to wait till I could raise my questions in a more public context. That opportunity came in February 1993, when Dr. Yosef A. A. ben-Jochannan was invited to give Wellesley's Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial lecture. Posters described Dr. ben-Jochannan as a "distinguished Egyptologist," and indeed that is how he was introduced by the then President of Wellesley College. But I knew from my research in Afrocentric literature that he was not what scholars would ordinarily describe as an Egyptologist, that is a scholar of Egyptian language and civilization. Rather, he was an extreme Afrocentrist, author of many books describing how Greek civilization was stolen from Africa, how Aristotle robbed the library of Alexandria, and how the true Jews are Africans like himself.

After Dr. ben-Jochannan made these same assertions once again in his lecture, I asked him during the question period why he said that Aristotle had come to Egypt with Alexander, and had stolen his philosophy from the Library at Alexandria, when that Library had only been built after his death. Dr. ben-Jochannan was unable to answer the question, and said that he resented the tone of the inquiry. Several students came up to me after the lecture and accused me of racism, suggesting that I had been brainwashed by white historians. But others stayed to hear me out, and I assured Dr. ben-Jochannan that I simply wanted to know what his evidence was: so far as I knew, and I had studied the subject, Aristotle never went to Egypt, and while the date of the Library of Alexandria is not known precisely, it was certainly only built some years after the city was founded, which was after both Aristotle's and Alexander's deaths.

A lecture at which serious questions could not be asked, and in fact were greeted with hostility -- the occasion seemed more like a political rally than an academic event. As if that were not disturbing enough in itself, there was also the strange silence on the part of many of my faculty colleagues. Several of these were well aware that what Dr. ben-Jochannan was saying was factually wrong. One of them said later that she found the lecture so "hopeless" that she decided to say nothing. Were they afraid of being called racists? If so, their behavior was understandable, but not entirely responsible. Didn't we as educators owe it to our students, all our students, to see that they got the best education they could possibly get? And that clearly was what they were not getting in a lecture where they were being told myths disguised as history, and where discussion and analysis had apparently been forbidden.

Good as the myths they were hearing may have made these students feel, so long as they never left the Afrocentric environment in which they were being nurtured and sheltered, they were being systematically deprived of the most important features of a university education. They were not learning how to question themselves and others, they were not learning to distinguish facts from fiction, nor in fact were they learning how to think for themselves. Their instructors had forgotten, while the rest of us sat by and did nothing about it, that students do not come to universities to be indoctrinated --at least in a free society.

I first learned about the notion that Socrates was black several years ago, from a student in my second-year Greek course on Plato's Apology, his account of Socrates' trial and conviction. Throughout the entire semester the student had regarded me with sullen hostility. A year or so later she apologized. She explained that she thought I had been concealing the truth about Socrates' origins. In a course in Afro-American studies she had been told that he was black, and my silence about his African ancestry seemed to her to be a confirmation of the Eurocentric arrogance her instructor had warned her about. After she had taken my course, the student pursued the question on her own, and was satisfied that I had been telling her the truth: so far as we know, Socrates was ethnically no different from other Athenians.

What had this student learned in her course in Afro-American studies? The notion that Socrates was black is based on two different kinds of inference. The first "line of proof" is based on inference from possibility. Why couldn't an Athenian have African ancestors? That of course would have been possible; almost anything is possible. But it is another question whether or not it was probable. Few prominent Athenians claim to have had foreign ancestors of any sort. Athenians were particularly fastidious about their own origins. In Socrates' day, they did not allow Greeks from other city-states to become naturalized Athenian citizens, and they were even more careful about the non-Greeks or barbaroi. Since Socrates was an Athenian citizen, his parents must have been Athenians, as he himself says they were.

Another reason why I thought it unlikely that Socrates and/or his immediate ancestors were foreigners is that no contemporary calls attention to anything extraordinary in his background. If he had been a foreigner, one of his enemies, or one of the comic poets, would have been sure to point it out. The comic poets never missed an opportunity to make fun of the origins of Athenian celebrities. Socrates was no exception; he is lampooned by Aristophanes in his comedy the Clouds. If Socrates and/or his parents had had dark skin, some of his contemporaries would have been likely to mention it, because this, and not just his eccentric ideas about the gods, and the voice that spoke to him alone, would have distinguished him from the rest of the Athenians. Unless, of course, he could not be distinguished from other Athenians because they all had dark skin; but then if they did, why did they not make themselves bear a closer resemblance the Ethiopians in their art?

Until recently, no one ever asked whether Cleopatra might have had an African ancestor, because our surviving ancient sources identify her as a Macedonian Greek. Her ancestors, the Ptolemies, were descended from one of Alexander's generals. After Alexander's death in 323 B. C., these generals divided up among themselves the territory in the Mediterranean that Alexander had conquered. The name Cleopatra was one of the names traditionally given to women in the royal family; officially our Cleopatra (69-30 BC) was Cleopatra VII, the daughter of Ptolemy XII and his sister. Cleopatra VII herself followed the family practice of marrying within the family. She married her two brothers (Ptolemy XIII and XIV) in succession (after the first died in suspicious circumstances, she had the second murdered). Her first language was Greek; but she was also the first member of the Ptolemaic line who was able to speak Egyptian. She also wore Egyptian dress, and was shown in art in the dress of the goddess Isis. She chose to portray herself as an Egyptian not because she was Egyptian, but because she was ambitious to stay in power. In her surviving portraits on coins and in sculpture she appears to be impressive rather than beautiful, Mediterranean in appearance, with straight hair and a hooked nose. Of course these portraits on metal and stone give no indication of the color of her skin.

The only possibility that she might not have been a full-blooded Macedonian Greek arises from the fact that we do not know the precise identity of one member of her family tree. We do not know who her grandmother was on her father's side. Her grandmother was the mistress (not the wife) of her grandfather, Ptolemy IX. Because nothing is known about this person, the assumption has always been that she was a Macedonian Greek, like the other members of Ptolemy's court. Like other Greeks, the Ptolemies were wary of foreigners. They kept themselves apart from the native population, with brothers usually marrying sisters, or uncles marrying nieces, or in one case a father marrying his daughter (Ptolemy IX and Cleopatra Berenice III). Because the Ptolemies seemed to prefer to marry among themselves, even incestuously, it has always been assumed that Cleopatra's grandmother was closely connected with the family. If she had been a foreigner, one of the Roman writers of the time would have mentioned it in their invectives against Cleopatra as an enemy of the Roman state. These writers were supporters of Octavian (later known as Augustus) who defeated Cleopatra's forces in the battle of Actium in 31 B.C.

The question of race matters only insofar as it is necessary to show that no classicists or ancient historians have tried to conceal the truth about the origins of the Greek people or the ancestry of certain famous ancient figures. It has been suggested that classicists have been reluctant to ask questions about Greek origins, and that we have been so "imbued with conventional preconceptions and patterns of thought" that we are unlikely to question the basic premises of our discipline. But even though we may be more reluctant to speculate about our own field than those outside it might be, none of us has any cultural "territory" in the ancient world that we are trying to insulate from other ancient cultures.

The idea that Greek religion and philosophy has Egyptian origins derives, at least in part, from the writings of ancient Greek historians. In the fifth century BC Herodotus was told by Egyptian priests that the Greeks owed many aspects of their culture to the older and vastly impressive civilization of the Egyptians. Egyptian priests told Diodorus some of the same stories four centuries later. The church fathers in the second and third centuries AD also were eager to emphasize the dependency of Greece on the earlier cultures of the Egyptians and the Hebrews. They were eager to establish direct links between their civilization and that of Egypt because Egypt was a vastly older culture, with elaborate religious customs and impressive monuments. But despite their enthusiasm for Egypt and its material culture (an enthusiasm that was later revived in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe), they failed to understand Egyptian religion and the purpose of many Egyptian customs.

Classical scholars tend to be skeptical about the claims of the Greek historians because much of what these writers say does not conform to the facts as they are now known from the modern scholarship on ancient Egypt. For centuries Europeans had believed that the ancient historians knew that certain Greek religious customs and philosophical interests derived from Egypt. But two major discoveries changed that view. The first concerned a group of ancient philosophical treatises attributed to Hermes Trismegistus; these had throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance been thought of as Egyptian and early. But in 1614 the French scholar Isaac Casaubon demonstrated that the treatises were actually late and basically Greek. The second discovery was the decipherment of hieroglyphics, the official system of Egyptian writing, completed by 1836. Before decipherment, scholars had been compelled to rely on Greek sources for their understanding of Egyptian history and civilization. Once they were able to read real Egyptian texts, and could disregard the fanciful interpretations of hieroglyphics that had been circulating since late antiquity, it became clear to them that the relation of Egyptian to Greek culture was less close than they had imagined. Egyptian belonged to the Afroasiatic language family, while Greek was an Indo-European language, akin to Sanskrit and European languages like Latin.

On the basis of these new discoveries, European scholars realized that they could no longer take at face value what Herodotus, Diodorus, and the Church fathers had to say about Greece's debt to Egypt. Once it was possible to read Egyptian religious documents, and to see how the Egyptians themselves described their gods and told their myths, scholars could see that the ancient Greeks' accounts of Egyptian religion were superficial, and even misleading. Apparently Greek writers, despite their great admiration for Egypt, looked at Egyptian civilization through cultural blinkers that kept them from understanding any practices or customs that were significantly different from their own. The result was a portrait of Egypt that was both astigmatic and deeply Hellenized. Greek writers operated under other handicaps as well. They did not have access to records; there was no defined system of chronology. They could not read Egyptian inscriptions or question a variety of witnesses because they did not know the language. Hence they were compelled to exaggerate the importance of such resemblances as they could see or find.

Because he tended to rely on such analogies as he could find, Herodotus inevitably made some false conjectures. Herodotus thought that Pythagoras learned about the transmigration of souls from Egypt, when in fact the Egyptians did not believe in the transmigration of souls, as their careful and elaborate burial procedures clearly indicate. Herodotus tells us that he wrote down what the Egyptians told him; but when they spoke, what did he hear? Since he did not know Egyptian, his informants could have been Greeks living in the Greek colony of Naucratis in the Nile Delta, or Egyptians who knew some Greek. How well-informed were his informants? On the question of origins, at least, it seems that neither group had any more than a superficial understanding of the other's culture. Perhaps someone explained to him about the Egyptian "modes of existence," in which a human being could manifest itself both materially, or immaterially, as ka or ba or a name, and that death was not an end, but a threshold leading to a new form of life. Belief in these varied modes of existence required that bodies be preserved after death, hence the Egyptian practice of mummification. Greeks, on the other hand, believed that the soul was separated from the body at death, and disposed of bodies either by burial or cremation. In any case, there is no reason to assume that Pythagoras or other Greeks who believed in transmigration, like the Orphics and/or the philosopher-poet Empedocles, got their ideas from anyone else: notions of transmigration have developed independently in other parts of the world.

Plato never says in any of his writings that he went to Egypt, and there is no reference to such a visit in the semi-biographical Seventh Epistle. But in his dialogues he refers to some Egyptian myths and customs. Plato, of course, was not a historian, and the rather superficial knowledge of Egypt displayed in his dialogues, along with vague chronology, is more characteristic of historical fiction than of history. In fact, anecdotes about his visit to Egypt only turn up in writers of the later Hellenistic period. What better way to explain his several references to Egypt than to assume that the author had some first-hand knowledge of the customs he describes? For authors dating from the fourth century and earlier, ancient biographers were compelled to use as their principal source material the author's own works. Later biographers add details to the story of Plato's Egyptian travels in order to provide aetiologies for the "Egyptian" reference in his writings. The most ironic anecdote of all is preserved by Clement of Alexandria: Plato studied in Egypt with Hermes the "Thrice Great" (Trismegistus). This is tantamount to saying that Plato studied with himself after his death. The works of Hermes could not have been written without the conceptual vocabulary developed by Plato and Aristotle, and is deeply influenced not just by Plato, but by the writings of Neoplatonist philosophers in the early centuries AD. In any case, whoever these teachers were, Plato seems never to have learned from them anything that is characteristically Egyptian, at least so far as we know about Egyptian theology from Egyptian sources. Instead, Plato's notion of the Egyptians remains similar to that of other Athenians; he did not so much change the Athenian notion of Egyptian culture as enrich and idealize it, so that it could provide a dramatic and instructive contrast with Athenian customs in his dialogues.

Even after nineteenth-century scholars had shown that the reports of Greek visitors to Egypt misunderstood and misrepresented what they saw, the myth that Greek philosophy derived from Egypt is still in circulation. The notion of an Egyptian legacy was preserved in the literature and ritual of Freemasonry. It was from that source that Afrocentrists learned about it, and then sought to find confirmation for the primacy of Egypt over Greece in the fantasies of ancient writers. In order to show that Greek philosophy is in reality stolen Egyptian philosophy, Afrocentrist writers assume that there was in existence from earliest times an "Egyptian Mystery System," which was copied by the Greeks. The existence of this "Mystery System" is integral to the notion that Greek philosophy was stolen, because it provides a reason for assuming that Greek philosophers had a particular reason for studying in Egypt, and for claiming that what they later wrote about in Greek was originally Egyptian philosophy. But in reality, the notion of an Egyptian Mystery System is a relatively modern fiction, based on ancient sources that are distinctively Greek, or Greco-Roman, and from the early centuries AD.

In their original form, ancient mysteries had nothing to do with schools or particular courses of study; rather, the ritual was intended to put the initiate into contact with the divinity, and if special preparation or rituals were involved, it was to familiarize the initiate with the practices and liturgy of that particular cult. The origin of the connection of Mysteries to education in fact dates only to the eighteenth century. It derives from a particular work of European fiction, published in 1731. This was the three-volume work Sethos, a History or Biography, based on Unpublished Memoirs of Ancient Egypt, by the Abbé Jean Terrasson (1670-1750), a French priest, who was Professor of Greek at the Collège de France. Although now completely forgotten, the novel was widely read in the eighteenth century..Of course Terrasson did not have access to any Egyptian information about Egypt, since hieroglyphics were not to be deciphered until more than a century later.

Perhaps the most influential Afrocentrist text is Stolen Legacy, a work that has been in wide circulation since its publication in 1954. Its author, George G. M. James, writes that "the term Greek philosophy, to begin with is a misnomer, for there is no such philosophy in existence." He argues that the Greeks "did not possess the native ability essential to the development of philosophy." Rather, he states that "the Greeks were not the authors of Greek philosophy, but the Black people of North Africa, The Egyptians." It is not hard to understand why James wishes to give credit for the Greek achievement to the Egyptians, even if there is little or no historical foundation for his claims. Like the other nationalistic myths, the story of a "Stolen Legacy" both offers an explanation for past suffering, and provides a source of ethnic pride.

But although the myth may encourage and perhaps even "empower" African-Americans, its use has a destructive side, which cannot and should not be overlooked. First of all, it offers them a "story" instead of history. It also suggests that African-Americans need to learn only what they choose to believe about the past. But in so doing, the Afrocentric myth seeks to shelter them from learning what all other ethnic groups must learn, and indeed, face up to, namely the full scope of their history.

What people on earth have had a completely glorious history? While we point to the great achievements of the Greeks, anyone who has studied ancient Greek civilization knows that they also made terrible and foolish mistakes. Isn't treating African-Americans differently from the rest of humankind just another form of segregation and condescension? Implied discrimination is the most destructive aspect of Afrocentrism, but there are other serious problems as well. Teaching the myth of the Stolen Legacy as if it were history robs the ancient Greeks and their modern descendants of a heritage that rightly belongs to them. Why discriminate against them when discrimination is the issue? In addition, the myth deprives the ancient Egyptians of their proper history and robs them of their actual legacy. The Egypt of the myth of the Stolen Legacy is a wholly European Egypt, as imagined by Greek and Roman writers, and further elaborated in eighteenth-century France. Ancient Egyptian civilization deserves to be remembered (and respected) for what it was, and not for what Europeans, ancient and modern, have imagined it to be.

James's idea of ancient Egypt is fundamentally the imaginary "Mystical Egypt" of Freemasonry. He speaks of grades of initiation. In these Mysteries, as the Freemasons imagined them, Neophyte initiates must learn self-control and self-knowledge. He believes that Moses was an initiate into the Egyptian mysteries, and that Socrates reached the grade of Master Mason. In his description of the Greek philosophy, he emphasizes the Four Elements that play such a key role in Terrasson's Memphis and Masonic initiation ceremonies. He speaks of the Masonic symbol of the Open Eye, which based on an Egyptian hieroglyph but in Masonry has come specifically to represent the Master Mind. As in the University/Mystery system invented by Terrasson, Egyptian temples are used as libraries and observatories.

What then are the Greeks supposed to have stolen from the Egyptians? Are there any texts in existence that be found to verify the claim that Greek philosophy was stolen from Egypt? How was the "transfer" of Egyptian materials to Greece accomplished? If we examine what James says about the way in which the "transfer" was supposed to have been carried out, we will find that that few or no historical data can be summoned to support it. In fact, in order to construct his argument, James overlooked or ignored much existing evidence.

No ancient source says that Alexander and Aristotle raided the Library at Alexandria. That they do not do so is not surprising, because it is unlikely that Aristotle ever went there. Aristotle was Alexander's tutor when Alexander was young, but he did not accompany him on his military campaign. Even if he had gone there, it is hard to see how he could have stolen books from the library in Alexandria. Although Alexandria was founded in 331 BC, it did not begin to function as a city until after 323. Aristotle died in 322. The library was assembled around 297 under the direction of Demetrius of Phaleron, a pupil of Aristotle's. Most of the books it contained were in Greek.

If Aristotle had stolen his ideas from the Egyptians, as James asserts, James should be able to provide parallel Egyptian and Greek texts showing frequent verbal correspondences. As it is, he can only come up with a vague similarity between two titles. One is Aristotle's treatise On the Soul, and the other the modern English name of a collection of Egyptian texts, The Book of the Dead. These funerary texts, which the Egyptians themselves called the Book of Coming Forth by Day, are designed to protect the soul during its dangerous journey through Duat, the Egyptian underworld, on its way to life of bliss in the Field of Reeds. Both Aristotle and the Egyptians believed in the notion of a "soul." But there the similarity ends. Even a cursory glance at a translation of the Book of the Dead reveals that it is not a philosophical treatise, but rather a series of ritual prescriptions to ensure the soul's passage to the next world. It is completely different from Aristotle's abstract consideration of the nature of the soul. James fails to mention that the two texts cannot be profitably compared, because their aims and methods are so different. Instead, he accounts for the discrepancy by claiming that Aristotle's theory is only a "very small portion" of the Egyptian "philosophy" of the soul, as described in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. On that basis, one could claim that any later writer plagiarized from any earlier writer who touched on the same subject. But why not assume instead that the later writer was influenced by the earlier writer, or even came up with the some of the same ideas independently, especially if those ideas are widespread, like the notion that human beings have souls?

James also alleges that Aristotle's theory of matter was taken from the so-called Memphite Theology. The Memphite Theology is a religious document inscribed on a stone tablet by Egyptian priests in the eighth century BC, but said to have been copied from an ancient papyrus. The archaic language of the text suggests that the original dates from sometime in the second millennium BC. According to James, Aristotle took from the Memphite theology his doctrine that matter, motion, and time are eternal, along with the principle of opposites, and the concept of the unmoved mover. James does not say how Aristotle would have known about this inscription, which was at the time located in Memphis and not in the Library of Alexandria, or explain how he would have been able to read it. But even if Aristotle had had some way of finding out about it, he would have had no use for it in his philosophical writings. The Memphis text, like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, is a work of a totally different character from any of Aristotle's treatises.

The Memphite text describes the creation of the world as then known (that is, Upper and Lower Egypt). It relates how Ptah's mind (or "heart") and thought (or "tongue") created the universe and all living creatures in it: "for every word of the god came about through what the heart devised and the tongue commanded." From one of his manifestations, the primordial waters of chaos, the sun-god Atum was born. When Ptah has finished creating the universe, he rests from his labors: "Ptah was satisfied after he had made all things and all divine words."

In form and in substance this account has virtually nothing in common with Aristotle's abstract theology. In fact, in Metaphysics Book 11, Aristotle discards the traditional notion of a universe that is created by a divinity or divinities, in favor of a metaphysical argument. If there is eternal motion, there is eternal substance, and behind that, an immaterial and eternal source of activity, whose existence can be deduced from the eternal circular motion of the heavens. The source of this activity is what is called in English translation the "unmoved mover."All that this theory has in common with the Memphite theology is a concern with creation of the universe. On the same insubstantial basis, it would be possible to argue that Aristotle stole his philosophy from the story of creation in the first book of Genesis.

There are of course many possible interpretations of the truth, but some things are simply not true. It is not true that there was no Holocaust. There was a Holocaust, although we may disagree about the numbers of people killed. Likewise, it is not true that the Greeks stole their philosophy from Egypt; rather, it is true that the Greeks were influenced in various ways over a long period of time by their contact with the Egyptians. But then, what culture at any time has not been influenced by other cultures, and what exactly do we mean by "influence"? If we talk about Greek philosophy as a "Stolen Legacy," which the Greeks swiped from Egyptian universities, we are not telling the truth, but relating a story, or a myth, or a tall tale. But if we talk about Egyptian influence on Greece, we are discussing an historical issue.

In historical and scientific discussions it is possible to distinguish degrees, and to be more or less accurate. As a classicist, I may overemphasize the achievement of the Greeks because I do not know enough about the rest of the Mediterranean world; Egyptologists may be inclined to make the same mistake in the opposite direction. We recognize that no historian can write without some amount of bias; that is why history must always be rewritten. But not all bias amounts to distortion, or is equivalent to indoctrination. If I am aware that I am likely to be biased for any number of reasons, and try to compensate for them, the result should be very different in quality and character from what I would say if I were consciously setting about to achieve a particular political goal.

Drawing a clear distinction between motivations and evidence has a direct bearing on the question of academic freedom. When it comes to deciding what one can or cannot say in class the question of ethnicity or of motivations, whether personal or cultural, is or ought to be irrelevant. What matters is whether what one says is supported by facts and evidence, texts or formulae. The purpose of diversity, at least in academe, is to ensure that instruction does not become a vehicle for indoctrinating students in the values of the majority culture, or for limiting the curriculum to the study of the history and literature of the majority culture. That means that it is essential for a university to consider developments outside of Europe and North America, and to assess the achievements of non-European cultures with respect and sympathy.

It is another question whether or not diversity should be applied to the truth. Are there, can there be, multiple, diverse "truths?" If there are, which "truth" should win? The one that is most loudly argued or most persuasively phrased? Diverse "truths are possible only if "truth" is understood to mean something like "point of view." But even then not every point of view, no matter how persuasively it is put across, or with what intensity it is argued, can be equally valid. The notion of diversity does not extend to truth.

Students of the modern world may think it is a matter of indifference whether or not Aristotle stole his philosophy from Egypt. They may believe that even if the story is not true, it can be used to serve a positive purpose. But the question, and many others like it, should be a matter of serious concern to everyone, because if you assert that he did steal his philosophy, you are prepared to ignore or to conceal a substantial body of historical evidence that proves the contrary. Once you start doing that, you can have no scientific or even social-scientific discourse, nor can you have a community, or a university.

Mary Lefkowitz is the Andrew W. Mellon Professor in the Humanities at Wellesley College. She is the author of many books on ancient Greece and Rome, including Lives of the Greek Poets and Women in Greek Myth, as well as articles for the Wall Street Journal and the New Republic. She is the co-editor of Women's Life in Greece and Rome and Black Athena Revisited.

Not Out of Africa by Mary Lefkowitz - The book that has sparked widespread debate over the teaching of revisionist history in schools and colleges. Was Socrates black? Did Aristotle steal his ideas from the library in Alexandria? Do we owe the underlying tenets of our democratic civilization to the Africans? Mary Lefkowitz explains why politically motivated histories of the ancient world are being written and shows how Afrocentrist claims blatantly contradict the historical evidence. Not Out of Africa is an important book that protects and argues for the necessity of historical truths and standards in cultural education.

Purchase from Amazon.com

A more proper question might be if he removed books from cannon.

OK. I can work with that.

An even more proper question might be if all the books in the cannon are inspired and can be proven against one another.

Or if the cannon in use in his lifetime was the definitive cannon used by all Christians for the previous 1100 years.

What's your point and how does it relate to the topic.

You're alleging that the Catholic Church has deliberately falsified history. I'm questioning your ability to make such judgements objectively and your dedication to seeking historical truth by assessing your judgement regarding an all-important historical issue in which you have a vested interest.

I expect you to say that the Catholic Church added books to the Bible when history clearly shows that the cannon of scripture was established by several Church Councils around the year 400 A.D. and had been in continuous use by all Christians for nearly 1100 years before, contrary to his doctrine of "Scripture alone," Luther removed several Old Testament books from the cannon of Scripture.

Did Luther create a forged history that I'm unaware of - if so please enlighten.

Yes, in the sense that he rejected the 1100 year history of the constant use of the Catholic cannon, creating his own ahistorical cannon, even contradicting his theory of "scripture alone" by removing books from Scripture when Scripture itself, under his rubric, is supposed to be the sole rule of faith.

Oh brother. This is grasping at straws. But I'll grant you that everyone's story is different. I've read countless articles and books and the conclusion I've come to is a simple one. If the cannon was set and sealed in 400, it would not have resulted in commentary from the well known translator that later translated the Apocryphals and included them with the cannon of scripture to the extent that he said 'I'm translating and including these for reference only'. Nor would it have resulted in Trent stating the Cannon as some would have it "clarifying" the cannon as it presumeably existed. If the cannon were settled in 400, the translator's opinion from a well educated (and noteably so) standpoint, he would have known that his opinion didn't bear any warrant of need at the time - especially if being a 'good catholic' he knew he was bound by council decree. Facts are stubborn things.
Luther may have rejected 1100 years of tradition. But the tradition regarding Constantine is older, has no basis in fact and is rather easily obliterated by scholars.

Now we look at Trent again and give it a benefit of a doubt.
If the Church is bound by council decision, there was no need for a second council to be called to settle a matter that supposedly the people are already bound to. Shakey ground. Back to Luther.

I don't subscribe to the notion that Luther's position was of necessity correct. I've no dog in this race. Luther had the sense to recognize that something was wrong; but, didn't have the conviction to follow through or to go as far as he should have. He fought to change things from the inside till he changed his mind later - nobody listened and instead threatened him. He rebelled and Rome decided to take him seriously all of a sudden (come hither and die - urr, talk with us). He became more about rebelling against the institution and their wrongs than about standing for what was right and making them see the right path. The rhetoric stands plenty enough on it's own leaving the question at the point of the texts.

Now As the war is over the texts - taking it back to the texts themselves and critical review of them finds that the modern 66 book cannon that is most commonly used among protestants is the most easily trusted work. That leaves the opinion of a council from 400 years after christ wanting if they didn't stop with those 66 as the others are demostrably inconsistant with the 66 - something that cannot happen if they are all inspired. And this is a point that is not debateable. Jewish cannon is in no way unclear that God cannot be divided against himself. It is also in the hands of the Jews to set that cannon and it was set before Christ arrived. Let's not forget that scripture states that the oracles of God were in the charge of the Jews - which leaves the Catholics in a funny position setting themselves as keepers of the oracles in any fashion- esp. the OT Cannon. Digressing, a work that expresses a position against another work that is known to be inspired cannot be inspired because by definition it divides God against himself - ie taking both sides on an issue by saying something is a sin and then saying it's not a sin.

Furthermore I look at the trust issues and where the credibility lies or does not. The Catholic church, and this is a matter of fact, not conjecture, has either produced frauds and presented them as factual works that have ended up in use by the church or has been duped by frauds - attributing them to would be saints that would have stature as cannonical if so accepted and are treated as such anyway though betrayed as fraud after long accepted use. Now, as I'm sure you are aware from discussions in another thread, the two Huge obvious groups I'm referencing are the collected frauds of Pseudo Clementine books, And the Forged works of Ignatius which are still under scrutiny to this day. There are others, these are just the most readily available on the net for perusal and consist of enough books collectively to nearly completely dilute the impact of accepted Cannon as it stands book for book. You're only 8 books shy of matching the NT cannon in quantity between the known frauds and the disputed works. If you throw in the fact that the Ignatian works have three
competing versions in some cases that are not wholely consistent, if further stresses the issue and brings one closer to an equality between known inspired books and known frauds. With three competing versions of ignatius at least two of them are spurious. And none of them has real
credibility on it's own save with Catholics.. again - no confidence.

Now the point of logic here is imminantly simple. 1) If the Catholic Church cannot discern a fake writing from the real thing when it comes to their own "fathers", 2) They have been Charged with and proven to have forged writings of early bishops and are charged with the forgery of Clement among others - showing no regard for the sanctity of the real thing 3) they have produced Isidore and subsequently Gracian with no regard for the sanctity of actual history with regard to historic writings, precedent and scriptural structure and 4) they duped one of their own imminent theologians into backing their frauds until he became wise of it and recanted - leaving for another sect (evidently not knowing his salvation was hinged on allegiance and submission to the bishop of Rome) it is therefore not a given that said group either knows the difference between Cannonical books and non-cannonical books or that it even cares beyond the political means to be gained by the next one admitted.

Now, Most here are not going to be aware of all the issues I'm highlighting. But you cannot get around the logic. If the track record neither supports an ability, willingness or care to know the difference but rather displays a willingness to defraud and a history of being duped by frauds, it is inconsistent to say that they could be an authority on what's real and what's not other than to the extent they know what they haven't forged and what forgeries others had to draw their attention to because they (presumeably) didn't know. It's not as though I grudgeingly admit they've been duped. That isn't debateable. It's historical fact that they have been. It's also true that they've been involved in duping others when it suited their purposes. And If I'm not too much mistaken from my last perusal of the subject in the Chronicles threads, someone else had highlighted over there the latest full blown study of the issue by scholars had resulted in again stating that the Roman Church was responsible for the creation and dissemination both of Isidore and Gracian. And if memory serves, it is web published, so a thorough study on the web should turn up that discussion; but, I believe asking over at the Chronicles thread will likely turn it up more quickly. Those who want to know actually have gone out and researched it so they could discuss the points drawn up in discussion repeatedly over there.

There you have it. You wanted my take, and you have it. I'm not alleging the church falsified history. I'm stating that it is the finding of Historians far more imminent than myself and is the widely held position even among a number of Catholic historians and teachers who don't say it very loudly but are still web quoted. I'm merely repeating their findings. It's not as though I'm some lone voice standing in the wilderness or the only one to have ever discovered this. I just seems I'm the one that broached the subject for the first time at FR and ended up with a rather silly ringside seat to a discussion where I was able to watch people change their posture on the issue everytime documentation was produced to the contrary of their latest position. And it's all in the Neverending story archives.
Along with the last holdout position that was finally obliterated - that being that doctrine was not affected by it. When that last holdout was proven false, the leader clammed up and regrouped to the old standby position of if you can't win on facts - smear. In any case, I think that settles fully my position on the subject.

I know, so long as you can continue to play the "insert some Catholic bashing into unrelated threads" game unimpeded, you'll be happy.

I didn't bash anyone. Nor am I going to sit here and defend against such moronicism. And if you're going to charge it, prove it. Go back to my original point and tell me and everyone else in here where I bashed the Catholic church. There is nothing there but a digest of the facts. If stating facts is bashing, then your problem is with the people who created the facts - the Catholic Church. Oh wait, let's not put it on all catholics, that is not accurate. The Roman Catholic Church. The latins perpetrated that fraud, not the Orthodox, they knew better and wouldn't relent to it.

Certainly! Discussing the topic of why you feel the need to post this stuff into unrelated thread migh be helpful.

I am completely on topic. In discussing the use of fraud and or forgery in the rewriting of history to suit an end, if mentioning the most aggregious and well known of such frauds among historians is not on topic, then NOTHING is. Care to tell me what's topical about your guys coming in here and trying to drag Martin Luther into the discussion by stretching the bounds of the conversation to the imagination? That wasn't about being topical. It was about trying on ya'lls part to sink this into a religious debate. I still managed to tie it all back to the debate ongoing and you guys have offered nothing but slander and insinuation. Pretty bad when you have to create a shadow to box with in plain view of everyone and then try to convince everyone it's you being picked on when it's quite the opposite. Don't attack me and make accusation when it's you guys pulling the garbage. Either stick to the topic or stuff a sock in it. I've got no use for bandying words with Martyrs that craft their own swords and fall on them in plain site while telling everyone that witnessed it that it was someone elses hand on the pommel.

I'm here to debate the topic as it founded in the article. If you wish to continue to try and slander me, there's plenty enough record here that I'm happy to take to the moderators as abuse. You're duly warned.

Actually, as some of the Roman Catholics on this board will tell you, I am more than willing to discuss some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church that I believe are in error.

Do I care? If I wanted to discuss how full of error the Catholic church is, I'd be in the Christian Chronicles sub. This discussion is about fraud as it relates to rewriting history and supplanting it with lies and fantasy. Again, the Roman church did it and got caught, that they have the distinction of owning the greatest fraud perpetrated is their fault not mine. Saying it is not bashing - it's stating an established fact. If the facts hurt, then you need to decide whether the truth is more important than your comfort. But spare us the self martyrdome complex. It's beyond juvenile and the bile from it is unmistakeable.

I didn't bash anyone. Nor am I going to sit here and defend against such moronicism. And if you're going to charge it, prove it.

I believe that I've been quite clear that your insertion concerning the Roman Catholic Church into the thread constituted bashing, IMHO. Had this been a thread concerning the primacy of the Pope, for instance, the same information would have been right on topic.

I just find it curious that you went to that particular example instead of something more recent, such as the Soviet rewriting of their Medieval history or the Democrats re-interpreting the failed Great Society programs as a success. I believe the selection was indicative of a bias.

Care to tell me what's topical about your guys coming in here and trying to drag Martin Luther into the discussion by stretching the bounds of the conversation to the imagination?

My guys? Pardon me, but they are individuals over whom I have no influence. ;-)

If you wish to continue to try and slander me, there's plenty enough record here that I'm happy to take to the moderators as abuse. You're duly warned.

You're threatening me? That's truly funny. Here, I'll ping the moderator for you. I suggest that your selection of off topic insertions indicate a bias and you call it slander? Perhaps you should heed your own words.

If the facts hurt, then you need to decide whether the truth is more important than your comfort. But spare us the self martyrdome complex. It's beyond juvenile and the bile from it is unmistakeable.

Dear Kettle:
You're black!
Sincerely,
The Pot.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.