There is no Afrikan influence on Judaism. Judaism is an Afrikan way of life. It was developed in Afrika by an Afrikan people who spoke an Afrikan language. It was adopted, adapted, then co-opted by non-Afrikans in a similar fashion that the way of life of the Yoruba Orisha worship (Vodoun, Santeria, Lacumi, Condomble, etc) is being co-opted and altered by non-Afrikans today. To speak of an Afrikan influence on Judaism is like speaking of an Afrikan influence on Orisha worship. It is not an Afrikan influence, it is Afrikan.

The Sinai peninsula is clearly within Afrika. It was there the Israelites claim to receive their oral and written law. Geologically speaking all of the adjacent Arabian peninsula clear up to Syria is part of the Afrikan continent. The Great Rift Valley extends from Mozambique to Syria. Continental drift of tectonics shows the Arabian plate breaking off from the continent and colliding into the Asian plate to create the mountain ranges of Turkey and Armenia.

The Hebrew language belongs to the AfroAsian language family. The Afrasian language family includes six groups, or branches: Cushitic, Egyptian, Omotic, Chadic (Hausa), Semitic, and Amazight (Berber). Even though a correction over earlier names, Afro-Asiatic is a misnomer because these languages are spoken nowhere in Asia unless carried there by religious conquest. These are actually NorthEast Afrikan languages native to Afrika from their southern origin in the Horn spreading westward to Nigeria and on to Morocco, eastward to Oman, and northward to Syria.

It's funny that some linguists would speak of a proto-Semitic language as if it were ancestral to all Afro-Asian languages. Semitic was actually near the last to seperate from the phylum roughly 6000 years ago whereas Kushitic became distinct 10,000 years ago. This indicates that proto-Afro-Asiatic developed in the region of Ethiopia and Somalia and began splitting by at least 8000 BCE.

Afrasian regions, branches and probable date of split:

Horn of Afrika	-	Kushitic	-	8th millenium BCE
Lower Nile Valley	-	Egyptian	-	before the 7th millenium BCE
Southwest Ethiopia	-	Omotic	-	7th millenium BCE
Lake Tschad	-	Hausa	-	7th millenium BCE
Arabia/E. Med.	-	Semitic	-	6th or 5th millenia BCE
North Afrika	-	Amazight	-	6th or 5th millenia BCE

The ritual and folkways described in Torah are very familiar to the Afrikan peoples all along the Rift Valley. This has bred confusion in the minds of "lost tribe" hunters who miss the underlining reality of the common origin of the Hebrews as a Semite people and the East Afrikans. The East Afrikans predate the Hebrews. Similarities between them would come from either common origins or Hebrews borrowing from East Afrikans not the other way around.

Most of the discourse on the ancient Hebrews is discolored by 20th century sociological interaction between Afrikans in America and Jewish Americans. It is fueled by this antagonism much more so than it is based on interpretation of historical, archaeological, or anthropological evidence. Simply put, it is disinformation.

There are no Egyptian art pieces depicting Israelites of any time period. There are only suppositions. However the Assyrians did leave pictorial records of their conquest of Lachish, a major city in the kingdom of Judah. Ever since they were found academicians have raised objections to them based on their own fanciful ideas of what a Jew must look like. James B. Pritchard's THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST VOL I is the most easily accessible book with a plate showing the leadership of Lachish who are clearly Africoid, as are the defeated soldiery of Lachish.

Both white people and black people biased against Jews and even most European Ashkenazi Jews themselves hate to deal with the reality of the physical identity of the Y*hudiym/Judahites/Jews in the 8th century BCE.

What serves to confirm the ethnic reality depicted by Assyrian conquerers is the discovery of an ossuary at Lachish dated to the time of the conquest. It is the largest sample of Israelite remains and comes from a city that was populated the previous 500 years by Israelites. 695 crania of all ages and gender were uncovered.

D. L. Risdon in BIOMETRIKA 1939 31:99-166 reports that the Lachish cranial series has its closest resemblance to the 4th dynasty series from Deshasheh and Medum in Lower Egypt and the 18th dynasty samples from Thebes and Abydos in Upper Egypt. Cranial samples from other Palestinian sites (Gezer, Megiddo) agree with the Lachish cranium. Thus we have a clear Afrikan racial continuum in the Hebrews and Egyptians.

Being in a zone of confluence, the Hebrews were pressed upon by and intermarried with northern invaders the same as happened in Egypt. Still, the Hebrew word for father-in-law is hham. Erets Hham is also the Hebrew for continental Afrika. Much marriage with Hamite Afrikan females must have took place.

The phrase "black and beautiful" ( sh*hhora w*nawa ) originates from a Hebrew document, Song of Songs 1:5, where an Israelite woman from Shunem exclaims her sun enhanced ebon beauty to some color and class struck dusky members of the royal household who kept themselves behind palace walls out of sunlight. For the Shulammite to have tanned black she must have already been very brown.

In the midrash (Hebrew legendary lore) Shem teamed up with Hham in the war against Yapheth, progenitor of the northern people of pallour. The PIRQE DE RABBI ELIEZER 28a classes Shem with people of colour. It says that Shem was especially blessed black and beautiful, Hham was blessed black like the raven, and Yapheth was blessed white all over.

Josephus, a Judahite writer of the 1st century CE, agrees with Cherilus' description of Israelites conscripted into Xerxes' army as having the visage of "smoke hardened horseheads." This refered to their high cheekbones and prominent jaws, as seen in the conquest of Lachish depictions, and their smokey "soot" dark complexions (Against Apion I.22). Tacitus, a younger contemporary of Josephus, lists common Roman opinions on Jewish origins. He wrote that many were assured Judahites were descendents of Kushites (The Histories V.2). Is this a view lurking within Amos 9:7?

Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?

The idea that the Israelites preferred or saw themselves as Caucasian comes from viewing too many European Renaissance fanciful paintings of Bible stories and East Mediterranean idylls.

Any anti-black prejudice and affiliation with Caucasians in preference to other Shemites and the Hhamites enters Judaism when, as worded by Dio Cassius, Roman History 37:17:1 "other men, who, although of a different race, have adopted the laws of the people." Today the still dark skinned Jews of the Maghreb, Ethiopia, Yemen, and India, suffer at the hands of those who adopted the laws of the people and came to take over the leadership by the same process that Chancellor Williams delineates in DESTRUCTION OF BLACK CIVILIZATION.

There is little love lost between Muslim North Africans and Sephardi/Maghrebi Jewry or between Afro-centrist African Americans and Ashkenazi Jewry. These conflicts cannot be used to falsify the historic truth of the Afrikan origin of the Hebrew people, their tribal way of life, and language. To do so is as much racialist propaganda as that of the Eurocentric thinkers we seek to eliminate with non-ethnocentric studies and disciplines. Thus our aim is not to deny the prescense of white elements among the ancient Israelites but to uncover the neglected facts of Hebrew origins.

Let us try to illustrate the operation of this method with the findings obtained in the course of studies of the homeland of the speakers of Proto-Afrasian (or Afrasiatic or Semito-Hamitic). The Proto-Afrasian language is the ancestor of the large Semito-Hamitic family of languages that includes six groups, or branches:Semitic, Cushitic, Omotic, Berber-Canarian, Chadic, Egyptian in Alexander Militarev's reconstruction. So, what do modern linguists make of human life in the Eastern Mediterranean some twelve thousand years ago? Let us first briefly recall what is known about that age from the more traditional disciplines.

One of the greatest revolutions of human history--the Neolithic Revolution, or the change from the appropriating economy to the producing one, took place in this region around the turn of the 10th millennium. Most data about this period come from archaeology (whose findings have limited use to a historian of intellectual culture or social life), the earliest written monuments beginning from the 3rd millennium (from which scholars gleam bits of information about much earlier times), and modern ethnographic descriptions of the life of the so-called primitive peoples of the present time--which may, or may not, resemble the “primitive” ancestors of ours of much earlier periods.

Refuting the claim of some archaeologists, historical linguists insist that humans inhabiting the Earth at the turn of the 10th millennium were not primitive at all.

Those ancestors of ours were skilled hunters who knew how to use spears, lances and bows. They lived, or, rather, roamed about in groups pursuing their hoofed prey--the antelopes, deer, chamois, goats, sheep, asses and, probably, even camels or elephants. They also knew how to domesticate goats, sheep, donkeys, relying on the help of their four-legged friends and pets--the dog.

To supplement their meat diet, the ancient Protoafrasians collected the grain of wild cereals and fruits of other plants, but also, using hoes, grew barley, several kinds of wheat and, very likely, leguminous plants. They used reaping hooks to harvest their crops and made flour from cereals. They knew how to set up traps to catch birds and gathered bird eggs. They used animal and vegetable fats and fermented what was probably barley beer.

Words in the Proto-Afrasians lexicon testify to their ability to wield flint implements and work with wood, to weave and saw all kinds of vegetable materials, wool and hides. They wore clothes and sandals and headgear.

They lived in tents and in more sedentary dwellings with lockable doors in big enough walled settlements—one out of many words in various Afrasian languages there is only one meaning ‘town’. This word--*kary--is the same in Semitic, Berber and Chadic, implying the common—Proto-Afrasian--origin of this term.

Yet another group of terms indicates a developed system of intra-family relations, including some rudiments of marriage (probably polygamous) and relations based on ownership-- there were 'poor' and 'rich' Proto-Afrasians twelve thousand years ago. Consequently, there are strong indications that those people lived in a society marked with a developed social structure, or hierarchy.