Ephraim was Black

[The Rambam]

It was asked in another thread how we know Ephraim was black.

45 And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnath-paaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt.

http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/41/45#45

20 ¶ And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born aManasseh and Ephraim, which bAsenath the daughter of Poti-pherah priest of On bare unto him.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gen/46/20#20

According to Daniel Ludlow:

As far as the Bible indicates, Joseph had only one wife, Asenath, and they had only two sons: Manasseh, the firstborn, and Ephraim (see Gen. 41:50–52).

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vg...____&hideNav=1

According to Hugh Nibley in Abraham in Egypt, p. 580-580:

At many points this relates to the classic story of the marriage of Joseph and Asenath, which explains the mingling and reconciling of the blood of Ham with the blood of Israel. For Asenath, it will be recalled was teh daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (Genesis 41:45, 46:20), and hence of the pure line of Ham; she was also the wife of Joseph and the mother of our own vaunted ancestor Ephraim (Genesis 41:50-52; 46:20).

Nibley goes on for a number of pages about how there was a massive mixing of blood during these times. He was emphatic that "We all have negro blood" (see Boyd Peterson's "Hugh Nibley: A consecrated life" at page 339-340). And then concludes that the reason Pharaoh couldn't hold the priesthood had nothing to do with race or blood but rather: "What was denied was recognition of patriarchal right the the priesthood made by a claim of matriarchal succession." (Abraham in Egypt, p. 587)

Of course those steeped in the racist traditions of the Cainite-Negro curse couldn't accept this and so adopted a pet theory that Asenath must have been something else. A few years after the ban was lifted, the Ensign published the following letter to the editor and comment:

In his article entitled “Joseph, Model of Excellence” (Sept. 1980, p. 9), the author writes that Joseph’s wife, Asenath, “was not only Egyptian, but a daughter of an Egyptian priest,” thus conveying the idea that her two sons, Ephraim and Manessah, were of “half-Egyptian” blood. If that were so, then both of them would have been of a lineage which at that time “could not have the rights of Priesthood” (Abr. 1:27).

Actually, the Pharaoh of Joseph’s time was not Egyptian by blood, but was of the Hyksos, a nomadic people who swept into Egypt from the Arabian peninsula. The Hyksos were a Semitic people, which made them distant relatives of Joseph and his family. Asenath was a descendant of these Semitic Hyksos, not an Egyptian.

Albert S. Paskett
Grantsville, Utah

The language used does permit confusion. Yes, Asenath was of the Semitic Hyksos people who were ruling Egypt in the days of Joseph. However, because they had conquered Egypt and were living there for a number of generations, it is also appropriate to identify them as Egyptians, just as it is possible to identify U.S. citizens of Danish or German or English extraction as Americans. The author was discussing national homeland boundaries, not racial origin or lineage.

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vg...____&hideNav=1

Of course this is rubbish. Without Asenath's blood to test we can't prove it for certain, but there is no debate among the scholars that the Priestess of On had to be black by definition. To be clear, I have no idea, but trust Nibley and the combined wisdom of all the Egyptoligists over Mr. Paskett from Grantsville Utah who provides no cites or sources for his contention.

And I point out that the Hyksos were a nomadic people who wandered around the ancient world for thousands of years, intermarrying as they went along. They had been in Egypt for centuries and the likelihood of an Egyptian Hyksos not having a drop of Hamite blood during Joseph and Asenath's day is impossibly remote. So Mr. Paskett's contention, even if true (which it isn't), doesn't solve the problem.

The sad thing to me is that the true Church of Jesus Christ was so racist for so long without scriptural justification. There was no modern revelation instituting the needless doctrinal abomination. And the irony of nearly all Mormons being told they are of the tribe of Ephraim, a black man, is too poetic to pass by without marvel.

And the lesson for today is that the Church can be wrong on important things. The answer isn't to leave the Church when you see where they are wrong. The answer isn't to picket temple square either. The answer is to be honest about what you see and pray for the day when the leaders hearts will be softened and they will let go of the wicked traditions of their fathers. If the Lord can be patient with me and all my many failings, then I can be patient with the failings of the Church which is led by good men, but natural men like you or me, not men of a different or higher nature.

And so I speak honestly about the silliness of not allowing women to serve as Sunday School Presidents or pass the sacrament and so forth. But I am not going to leave the Church over its anachronistic traditions.

And I always retain in remembrance the idea that I see through a glass darkly and might be wrong. Maybe Asenath's ancestors really had lived in a little Hyksos bubble as they wandered the post-deluge world and Ephraim had no blood of Ham in him and maybe there is doctrinal significance I remain blind to which makes it important that my young woman daughter not carry a sacrament tray down the aisle. Both are possible.

[The Rambam]

Interestingly a google search on Mr. Paskett reveals a few things. In a 1995 letter to the Deseret News bemoaning high taxes he said:

I am 87 years old, retired, with an income of around $18,000 per year. I have a disabled son at home. My wife is dead. I was retired on a disability. In spite of this, my taxes are too high.

http://archive.deseretnews.com/archi...-WHO-DONT.html

And in 1991 Mr. Paskett made a rather amazing argument that taxes should be lowered so public school teacher's salaries could be increased:

My advice to these zealots would be to back off and confine their activities to their legal spheres of authority and while they are about it, they could cease and desist from confiscating half of a working man's income under the guise of taxes and thus leave more money to the states to properly pay out teachers and to sensibly conduct the business of education.

http://archive.deseretnews.com/archi...R-ON-KIDS.html

Unfortunately there is no evidence of his qualifications to speak on the ancestry and bloodline of ancient peoples.

[ERCougar]

It was asked in another thread how we know Ephraim was black.





According to Daniel Ludlow:



According to Hugh Nibley in Abraham in Egypt, p. 580-580:



Nibley goes on for a number of pages about how there was a massive mixing of blood during these times. He was emphatic that "We all have negro blood" (see Boyd Peterson's "Hugh Nibley: A consecrated life" at page 339-340). And then concludes that the reason Pharaoh couldn't hold the priesthood had nothing to do with race or blood but rather: "What was denied was recognition of patriarchal right the the priesthood made by a claim of matriarchal succession." (Abraham in Egypt, p. 587)

Of course those steeped in the racist traditions of the Cainite-Negro curse couldn't accept this and so adopted a pet theory that Asenath must have been something else. A few years after the ban was lifted, the Ensign published the following letter to the editor and comment:



Of course this is rubbish. Without Asenath's blood to test we can't prove it for certain, but there is no debate among the scholars that the Priestess of On had to be black by definition. To be clear, I have no idea, but trust Nibley and the combined wisdom of all the Egyptoligists over Mr. Paskett from Grantsville Utah who provides no cites or sources for his contention.

And I point out that the Hyksos were a nomadic people who wandered around the ancient world for thousands of years, intermarrying as they went along. They had been in Egypt for centuries and the likelihood of an Egyptian Hyksos not having a drop of Hamite blood during Joseph and Asenath's day is impossibly remote. So Mr. Paskett's contention, even if true (which it isn't), doesn't solve the problem.

The sad thing to me is that the true Church of Jesus Christ was so racist for so long without scriptural justification. There was no modern revelation instituting the needless doctrinal abomination. And the irony of nearly all Mormons being told they are of the tribe of Ephraim, a black man, is too poetic to pass by without marvel.

And the lesson for today is that the Church can be wrong on important things. The answer isn't to leave the Church when you see where they are wrong. The answer isn't to picket temple square either. The answer is to be honest about what you see and pray for the day when the leaders hearts will be softened and they will let go of the wicked traditions of their fathers. If the Lord can be patient with me and all my many failings, then I can be patient with the failings of the Church which is led by good men, but natural men like you or me, not men of a different or higher nature.

And so I speak honestly about the silliness of not allowing women to serve as Sunday School Presidents or pass the sacrament and so forth. But I am not going to leave the Church over its anachronistic traditions.

And I always retain in remembrance the idea that I see through a glass darkly and might be wrong. Maybe Asenath's ancestors really had lived in a little Hyksos bubble as they wandered the post-deluge world and Ephraim had no blood of Ham in him and maybe there is doctrinal significance I remain blind to which makes it important that my young woman daughter not carry a sacrament tray down the aisle. Both are possible.

Thanks. Interesting stuff.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Fascinating. Thanks.

[jay santos]

It was asked in another thread how we know Ephraim was black.





According to Daniel Ludlow:



According to Hugh Nibley in Abraham in Egypt, p. 580-580:



Nibley goes on for a number of pages about how there was a massive mixing of blood during these times. He was emphatic that "We all have negro blood" (see Boyd Peterson's "Hugh Nibley: A consecrated life" at page 339-340). And then concludes that the reason Pharaoh couldn't hold the priesthood had nothing to do with race or blood but rather: "What was denied was recognition of patriarchal right the the priesthood made by a claim of matriarchal succession." (Abraham in Egypt, p. 587)

Of course those steeped in the racist traditions of the Cainite-Negro curse couldn't accept this and so adopted a pet theory that Asenath must have been something else. A few years after the ban was lifted, the Ensign published the following letter to the editor and comment:



Of course this is rubbish. Without Asenath's blood to test we can't prove it for certain, but there is no debate among the scholars that the Priestess of On had to be black by definition. To be clear, I have no idea, but trust Nibley and the combined wisdom of all the Egyptoligists over Mr. Paskett from Grantsville Utah who provides no cites or sources for his contention.

And I point out that the Hyksos were a nomadic people who wandered around the ancient world for thousands of years, intermarrying as they went along. They had been in Egypt for centuries and the likelihood of an Egyptian Hyksos not having a drop of Hamite blood during Joseph and Asenath's day is impossibly remote. So Mr. Paskett's contention, even if true (which it isn't), doesn't solve the problem.

The sad thing to me is that the true Church of Jesus Christ was so racist for so long without scriptural justification. There was no modern revelation instituting the needless doctrinal abomination. And the irony of nearly all Mormons being told they are of the tribe of Ephraim, a black man, is too poetic to pass by without marvel.

And the lesson for today is that the Church can be wrong on important things. The answer isn't to leave the Church when you see where they are wrong. The answer isn't to picket temple square either. The answer is to be honest about what you see and pray for the day when the leaders hearts will be softened and they will let go of the wicked traditions of their fathers. If the Lord can be patient with me and all my many failings, then I can be patient with the failings of the Church which is led by good men, but natural men like you or me, not men of a different or higher nature.

And so I speak honestly about the silliness of not allowing women to serve as Sunday School Presidents or pass the sacrament and so forth. But I am not going to leave the Church over its anachronistic traditions.

And I always retain in remembrance the idea that I see through a glass darkly and might be wrong. Maybe Asenath's ancestors really had lived in a little Hyksos bubble as they wandered the post-deluge world and Ephraim had no blood of Ham in him and maybe there is doctrinal significance I remain blind to which makes it important that my young woman daughter not carry a sacrament tray down the aisle. Both are possible.

This is an obvious lie.

Look at our secondary.

Look at the hops of the guys on our BB team.

[woot]

Such discussions are interesting, but lets not consider for a moment that any of it is true. Scriptural explanations for skin color variation are wrong, and it's time that they were left behind along with so much else of the old testament.

[Goatnapper'96]

This is an obvious lie.

Look at our secondary.

Look at the hops of the guys on our BB team.

You son of a bitch, you stole my line of thinking.

[BigPiney]

This is an obvious lie.

Look at our secondary.

Look at the hops of the guys on our BB team.

Jay with the Win. That was funny.

[myboynoah]

Such discussions are interesting, but lets not consider for a moment that any of it is true. Scriptural explanations for skin color variation are wrong, and it's time that they were left behind along with so much else of the old testament.

Probably true, but Rambam's statement on the irony of Mormons being from the tribe of Ephraim, a black man, is great.

[All-American]

I want it to be perfectly clear that I have absolutely no interest in how the ethnicity of Ephraim may or may not reflect upon the priesthood ban.

That said, I don't think he was black.

The Hyksos were in control during the second intermediate phase between the Middle and New Kingdoms of Egypt. If scholarly projections are correct and the lifetimes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph ran through this era, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't have been running the show, even occupying offices traditionally reserved for Egyptians-- such as the Priestess of On, or more importantly, the Pharoah. The argument that the Priestess of On had to be black by definition is a blanket statement that has to cover thousands of years of Egyptian history, and nowhere is an exception to the rule more likely than during a foreign regime.

It comes as little surprise to me that even very reputable scholars claim that Asenath, and therefore Ephraim, must have been black (though the only one you mention who makes that claim is Nibley, it appears). I've seen even more reputable scholars argue that Hannibal was black, even though we KNOW he was Punic, and that Cleopatra was black, even though we KNOW she was Macedonian, both facts less disputed even than the traditional race of the Priestess of On. It's all too easy to automatically assume that African=Black.

To be clear, not only do I not know whether Asenath was black, I don't care. If it turns out that Ephraim was black, I'll keep paying my tithing. I speak up only because of the implications Radambam makes of this poetic irony. If you want to argue that your daughter should be ordained a deacon, fire away, but you really shouldn't use the notion that Ephraim himself was black to bolster your argument. Not only is it on the wrong side of the probability scale, it has the dual disadvantage of being not only unproven, but also unprovable.

[SeattleUte]

Such discussions are interesting, but lets not consider for a moment that any of it is true. Scriptural explanations for skin color variation are wrong, and it's time that they were left behind along with so much else of the old testament.

Noah is right. Scritpture stories retain their terrible poetic power as allegory and metaphor, for better or worse, and probably always will. As such, a black Ephraim, whose persona is especially significant to Mormons, is worth considering. We know those biographical scetches in the Iliad are probably made up (the poem, besides containing all that fantastic material about gods, was set down in writing maybe 400 years after the purported events in question). They are nevertheless stirring and beautiful and have been supremely influential.

[woot]

Noah is right. Scritpture stories retain their terrible poetic power as allegory and metaphor, for better or worse, and probably always will. As such, a black Ephraim, whose persona is especially significant to Mormons, is worth considering. We know those biographical scetches in the Iliad are probably made up (the poem, besides containing all that fantastic material about gods, was set down in writing maybe 400 years after the purported events in question). They are nevertheless stirring and beautiful and have been supremely influential.

Indeed, and the irony of a black Ephraim, if the text really does bear that out, is not lost on me. I just wanted to make sure we weren't getting carried away actually believing such explanations when the real explanation is so beautifully understood.

I remember before my patriarchal blessing hoping that I wasn't from Ephraim, since that seemed so common. I wonder if I was weird for wanting to be different.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I want it to be perfectly clear that I have absolutely no interest in how the ethnicity of Ephraim may or may not reflect upon the priesthood ban.

That said, I don't think he was black.

The Hyksos were in control during the second intermediate phase between the Middle and New Kingdoms of Egypt. If scholarly projections are correct and the lifetimes of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph ran through this era, there's no reason to believe they wouldn't have been running the show, even occupying offices traditionally reserved for Egyptians-- such as the Priestess of On, or more importantly, the Pharoah. The argument that the Priestess of On had to be black by definition is a blanket statement that has to cover thousands of years of Egyptian history, and nowhere is an exception to the rule more likely than during a foreign regime.

It comes as little surprise to me that even very reputable scholars claim that Asenath, and therefore Ephraim, must have been black (though the only one you mention who makes that claim is Nibley, it appears). I've seen even more reputable scholars argue that Hannibal was black, even though we KNOW he was Punic, and that Cleopatra was black, even though we KNOW she was Macedonian, both facts less disputed even than the traditional race of the Priestess of On. It's all too easy to automatically assume that African=Black.

To be clear, not only do I not know whether Asenath was black, I don't care. If it turns out that Ephraim was black, I'll keep paying my tithing. I speak up only because of the implications Radambam makes of this poetic irony. If you want to argue that your daughter should be ordained a deacon, fire away, but you really shouldn't use the notion that Ephraim himself was black to bolster your argument. Not only is it on the wrong side of the probability scale, it has the dual disadvantage of being not only unproven, but also unprovable.

Of course it is unprovable. There may not have even been a person named Ephraim.

As for your "wrong side of the probability scale" comment, can you clarify a bit? How would one decide +/- 50% probability in a case like this?

[SeattleUte]

As for your "wrong side of the probability scale" comment, can you clarify a bit? How would one decide +/- 50% probability in a case like this?

Smack down! Swish! Amen Bro. Lebowski!

[All-American]

Of course it is unprovable. There may not have even been a person named Ephraim.

As for your "wrong side of the probability scale" comment, can you clarify a bit? How would one decide +/- 50% probability in a case like this?

I quite simply mean more likely to be false than true.