This article shall be begun with an analogy to explain exactly who Yosef ben-Jochanan (affectionately called "Dr. Ben" by many of his fans) is. As Dead Sea Scrolls scholarship has its Robert Eisenmanns and Barbara Theirings; as Jesus Quest scholarship must bear the cross of its G. A. Wellses and Acharya Esses, so too must secular historians suffer the morning breath of the likes of Yosef ben-Jochanon.

Yosef ben-Jochanan (hereafter YBJ) is a conspiracy theorist. He is in this specific coterie of writers who insist that true history has been altered by a racist establishment that is hiding such facts as: the ancient Egyptians were black (the thesis of another of YBJ's books, Black Man of the Nile -- in actuality, the ancient Egyptians were somewhat tan- or olive-skinned, as their tomb paintings clearly illustrate), and they had discovered the power of flight; great Greek works of philosophy were stolen by Aristotle from African libraries plundered by Alexander the Great; ancient Africans believed in a "superior force" or "being" analogous to God as early as 750,000 BC; melanin (the stuff that gives all of us our skin tone, whatever it may be) is actually a highly therapeutic chemical that makes those with more of it superior to those with less of it; the white race is descended from brutal thugs who lived in frigid climates and suffered sexual frustration, and this is why whites today are so cruel and obnoxious...it's rather a large amount of material, and we will have little to say about it here, other than that classical scholars and historians, and other professionals in the relevant realms of the sciences and anthropology, regard such claims much as we regard those of G. A. Wells: They find it all about as amusing as a cockroach. Personally, I think those of African heritage have quite enough to be proud of without needing the likes of YBJ, Ivan Sertima, and Leonard Jeffries telling them that the ancient Sudanese landed on the moon. (YBJ himself often claims that he is a trained "Egyptologist" although his critics note that he has no working knowledge of the Egyptian language.)

YBJ is written of here not because of these things, but because of a specific book of his I was asked to look into, entitled African Origins of the Major "Western Religions" (Alkebu-Lan Books, 1970). If you find this book, do not be prepared to admire the technical brilliance of its composition. Like J. B. McPherson's Holey Bible, it is cheaply typeset, and filled with spelling, grammatical and typographical errors. Words are capitalized completely for emphasis, as though to shout from the page whenever the point itself is too weak to stand. There are no drawings done by someone's five-year-old aspiring cartoonist, but there is, at least once every page, a reminder that we would realize that all of what YBJ was saying was the golden truth were it not for those naughty racist conspirators who keep hovering over everything. Finally, the source work is naturally dismal; among the works consulted are an extraordinary number from the 19th century (including some of the same mythicists used by Achraya S, like Gerald Massey and Godfrey Higgins, all of them long superseded by 21st century scholarship if it so much as pays attention to them, which it does not) and Homer Smith, the kidney specialist who wrote Man and His Gods.

The premise of this book is that the three major "Western" religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) have origins not in the West, but in Africa (and, YBJ admits grudgingly, Asia). Well, of course they do. No one denies any of these things; nor does anyone teach (as YBJ seems to think, but he never quotes anyone) that Europeans invented the Ten Commandments. The precepts contained in this code, YBJ tells us, were "used in Egypt and Ethiopia thousands of years" before Moses; and yet, we "are still taught as if the first time they ever came to the knowledge of mankind" was Mt. Sinai and Moses. Who teaches this, I can't say. I think perhaps the scarecrow in the field may know. The 10 C's are recognized by scholars of the ANE as an examplar of a typical moral code for the period, and indeed universally; which is not to say that there is any indication of dependence. No one needed to plagiarize the commands not to kill or steal, as though Moses and the Hebrews or anyone else had no such command before in their society and went about indiscriminately killing people and stealing their chariots until one day they found the Code of Hammurabi in one of the libraries they were looting and decided it contained some good ideas.

And of course, much of what YBJ argues involves this kind of accusation of "borrowing" or "stealing" some universal concept, as though the Egyptians came up with the idea alone and everyone else was too dumb to think of it likewise. He quotes the Egyptian Book of the Dead as saying that the sun god Ra is a "...jealous God..." and as commanding "...no other gods before me..." Yeah, well...so what's the issue? Is there any deity, true or false, who would say, "I don't mind if you abandon me and turn to other gods"? Maybe Moses borrowed the terminology; maybe it was a universal and correct conception of what a deity was supposed to be/is like; what difference does it make? None at all; all that matters is whether the deity in question is a true one. And the parallels become more strained. We are told that ancient African voodoo ceremonies are "very similar in purpose" to ceremonies held at "the so-called 'storefront churches' in Harlem." (xvii) Proving....what? Similar...in what way, exactly? It's not clear, although it is interesting that we are not given precise descriptions of the Harlem "ceremonies," much less given any insight into their anthropological genesis; we are also told little of the voodoo ceremony supposedly at issue, other than, for example, that they were to deities like Legla, the lord of roads and streets. Well, I have heard that the Department of Public Works in New York is pretty hard to get a hold of. Bottom line is that where YBJ offers arguments like these, he always leaves out specific descriptions of one side's practices (and sometimes both sides'), and argues as through minor correspondences prove dependency without providing any evidence of a direct line of origin or discussing the differences in practice that make all the difference. It's the same with all of his comparisons: Ancient voodoo practices of cannibalism are no different than taking communion; ancient tribal beliefs in a spirit world are the same as a modern belief in Heaven and Hell; offerings of wine in whatever religion are "in every sense the same" as voodoo rites using wine. And the reason it seems YBJ feels free to do this is not because he has made critical comparisons or done serious source investigation, but is summarized in this statement at the very end of his book: "ANY RELIGION IS AS GOOD AS THE OTHER." (304) In YBJ's book, the premise that any religious belief is good, bad, true or false, is "the cardinal problem" (46) which causes bigotry and intolerance. I wonder whether it would also be a problem when considering Aztec sacrifices, or the religious aspects of groups like the Aryan nation. Something tells me that Dr. Ben would have a change of heart once he left his air-conditioned offices and got out into the real world. (The real reason for believing your religion, he supposes, is pride, the need to "have your own thing" [54]. Fat lot of good that will do before the White Throne, though! To paraphrase someone much wiser, he who has more will be given, but those who have not, even what they have shall be taken from them.)

And by the way, if you don't believe this, you are just a racist. I am not kidding about this kind of admonition being found on every page. If it wasn't the fault of "racist colonial slavemasters" it was the fault some other type of bigot yet to be discovered. (Granting the atrocities of the past, how does this affect the data of the present? Can you say, "genetic fallacy"?) Scholars of this field are to be ignored, for they "teach beyond and above the understanding of their parishioners mainly to show their academic skills rather than deal with their followers' earthly needs." (13) (Sounds rather like Wayne Harrington's screed against scholarship, no? You stop talking so smart, guys, and start making up stuff to make us happy about ourselves!) Conspiracy is found in even the slightest efforts: Of a book titled God, Allah and Ju Ju, it is complained that "Since Africa is the main theme or subject of the entire book, why not JU JU, GOD AND ALLAH?" (Don't scratch your nose, or you're part of the conspiracy.)

Let's now discuss some of what YBJ has to say about Christianity and Judaism. Concerning the often used Christian claim that Christ was the one to whom God was speaking when He said "let us make man in our image," YBJ says, "It could not have been Jesus Christ...he was not born." (Clearly this is a writer who is unaware of some of Christianity's most fundamental tenets, here for example, the equation of Christ with God's eternal Word.) His only real attempt to give Christianity an "African" origin is to make much of the influence of St. Augustine on modern Christian thought. Why? Because Augy was an "indigenous African"...as if mere geography has a thing to do with one's mind. Now Augy was indeed born in the area roughly equivalent to today's Tunisia or Algeria, so it's not that the claim itself is untrue; it simply doesn't mean a thing. When you get down to it, Augy was actually a mixed breed: his mother was also an indigenous African (a Numidian), but his pagan dad was a Roman official. You won't hear YBJ mention this, though: he only tells us that Dad was "a minor state official"...not a word about his origins, since that would ruin the argument.) Also, he got his training in Italy from a smart guy named Ambrose. (We are told, though, that this makes no difference, since there were Christians in Africa already and Augy's mon was one. In other words, Augy learned all he needed to know in Africa and his time in Milan and Rome was spent listening to Ambrose dodder about things he already knew.) And oh yes...YBJ also mentions that there were "ancient versions" of the gospels that were different, "not as it has been corrupted today," (94) but as is typical from the conspiracy camp, don't expect any actual evidence for these assertions. Bruce Metzger is a racist colonial slavemaster, don't you know. Think not? We are told that the African "origin" of Augustine "has been carefully camouflaged, suppressed or otherwise made to appear that he was only born in North Africa, but, that he was a 'Caucasian.'" Well, every source I check is quite clear on Augy's mixed ancestry, and they don't say anything about him being Caucasian or Eurasian or any other type of -asian. I suspect YBJ has been attending lectures at the Nazi school of history and been thinking that the curriculum is universal.

YBJ's comments on Judaism are a little more relevant, but no less amusing. Here likewise he drags someone--this time, Moses--into the "indigenous African" fold, and his main proof of Moses' African heritage is Exodus 2:9, where the daughters of Jethro tell their Dad, referring to Moses, "An Egyptian delivered us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock." This means something, does it? The native Egyptians, like the Judeaens, are swarthy of skin, and Moses had just spent a lot of time in the desert at any rate; the girls' identification was more likely based on some other contingency---Moses' dress (of course, he would have done all his shopping in Egypt up until now!), some insignia, his language. This verse is hardly evidence that Moses was "not a Jew" as YBJ alleges. (Or, as he would say, that Moses was one of "the small group of half-starving Asian Jews" who plundered the advanced Egyptians for their ideas and technology. One smells a racist rat indeed, but it is not a colonial slavemaster in this round. We are told, though, that the Jews were the perpetrators of a "colonial invasion and confiscation" of the lands of others. Judgment of sin, of course, would mean we are not respecting that one religion, like the brutal, child-sacrificing and orgiastic Canaanite religion, is as good as another.) There's also the standard line about parts of Proverbs being borrowed from the Egyptian Wisdom of Amenemope and accusing Solomon of "plagiarism," never mind the fact that the ancients didn't think this was a crime, and that the borrowing may as well have been the other way -- or from a common source. Kings were more interested in building temples than copyright offices, and such copying was looked upon as a positive thing. Finally, YBJ makes much of a quote from Tacitus' Histories 5.2 where it is speculated that the Jews originated from Ethiopia. YBJ won't tell you that Tacitus also reports speculation that the Jews were from Crete, Egypt, or Assyria. Clearly the identification of the Jews' point of origin was not based upon anything that YBJ with his racial gerrymandering arguments would be able to make any point from.

In conclusion: Yosef ben-Jochanon has little worthwhile to say and certainly nothing that adds to, or controverts, the mountain range of Christian scholarship...and that's the plain truth, in black and white.