[FASCINATING] ISIL helps Israel conceal historical origin

PB: Dear Dr Ezzat, I’m no expert on ancient history, but just a question in view of the critique on Amazon, by Jan on March 14, 2015…  Would it be possible that Jews went to Egypt to corrupt, rob and hijack it, as they do today with other empires? When the pharaoh got his act together and threw them out, the Jews presented it in the Bible and history books for goyim as an epic, heroic Exodus martyrology? — Piotr Bein
2 of 11 people found the following review helpful
on March 14, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition
This is one of the most ludicrous books I have ever read, but sadly often typical of modern Egyptian nationalists. One of the author’s central theses is that “pharaoh” (ultimately from ancient Egyptian pr-‘3 [per-aa]), which literally means “Great House” refers only to the king’s palace and never to the king himself. (As a comparison, consider the media’s use of “White House” to refer to the US president, not just his place of residence.) The book then rapidly descends into an anti-Semitic screed (and not “just” anti-Zionism either!).

Unfortunately it is quite clear that the author, while possessing a little basic knowledge, is in fact shockingly uninformed with regard to ancient languages. If he were, he would have noted that yes, per-aa does start out with a literal meaning of referring only to the king’s residence (and not the king himself), but by the time of Akhenaten in Dynasty 18, there are plenty of texts where is it clear that only a human being—and not a building—can be intended. During the Ramesside Period (Dynasties 19 and 20), the king is regularly called “Per-aa”/”Pharaoh,” especially in documentary texts (letters, wills, tax accounts, grain reports, etc.), although not as part of his official titulary. By Dynasty 21 and afterwards however, not only is the term “Per-aa” (i.e., “Pharaoh”) commonly used as a title of the king but it actually is placed immediately before his name (for example “Pharaoh Siamun”), again especialy in documentary texts. (This is also precisely the time that the Hebrew Bible was being written down—or shortly afterwards—so that a similar usage in the Bible [e.g, Pharoah Hophra] is not anomalous, contra Ezzat.)

Furthermore, foreign peoples, such as the Assyrians and the Greeks, were also aware of this and use “Pharaoh” (in their languages of course) in reference to the ruler of Egypt and not his palace. This carries on into Coptic as well, never mind Hebrew. To deny otherwise is just to be either completely ignorant or blatantly stubborn.

Similarly, the author denies that Hebrew Mizraim and Arabic Misr refer to Egypt, but rather to an obscure location in Arabia. However, the Assyrians invaded Egypt several times, and when they did, they called it Musuru (with variants), and also mentioned clearly Egyptian cities like Memphis (which they sacked), Busiris, Tanis, and others, as well as individuals with Egyptian names. The author’s argumentation is not at all supported by the facts.

The rest of the author’s “research” is equally as bad; a 1st year Egyptology student can easily plow through all the arguments given, or frankly, anyone with common sense.

The real agenda here is clearly an anti-Semtic one, almost painfully so. However, in order to support this position the author must significantly distort the facts with incredibly tortured “explanations” or just ignore what might cause his house of card to fall down.

If you want to have a taste of modern Egyptian, anti-Semitic thought, this is the book for you, but if you are looking for a legitimate discussion of ancient Egypt and her history, give this book a pass. Don’t waste your time or your money.


By piotrbein