Physical Descriptions of the Adamites, Shemites, Hebrews, Israelites and Judahites

In recent times it has become popular to claim that the ancient Israelites were racially alien to modern Europeans. This idea stems from the recent anti-White and anti-Christian cultural movements which find it beneficial to convince Whites that Christianity is alien to the Europoid race. Even White nationalists have taken up this narrative to support their disdain for Christianity learned from the Edomite Jewish mainstream media which seeks to indoctrinate us from cradle to grave. 

https://christogenea.org/articles/white-nationalist-cognitive-dissonance

While this notion has gained traction in recent years, centuries of European Christian art have painted a very different picture. While anti-Whites continue to scoff at these traditional Christian depictions, recent discoveries in the fields of archaeology and archaeogenetics have vindicated the traditional Christian view of the racial traits of the ancient Israelites.

Ancient Judaean mosaics have been unearthed in Palestine, particularly in the region of Galilee, the land of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. The defining features of the races of the modern Middle-East like Armenoids and Arabids are absent in these depictions. Features such as the “permanent smile” and drooping hooked noses are not to be seen. 

While Judaea had suffered racial infiltration by the Edomites beginning in the late 2nd century BC bringing the ancestors of modern Jewry to ancient Judaea, it seems that Galilee and other parts of Northern Palestine were not affected visibly by this intrusion even up until the 5th century AD.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’ https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

These mosaics consistently display the Europoid features of the Judaeans who display hyperdepigmentation and straight, upright noses as well as modest lips. Some scoffers claim these mosaics are Greek rather than Judaean, but the Syriac text which accompanies many of these depictions and their location in synagogues disprove that claim as does the fact that early Byzantine Galilee maintained a Judaean majority well into the era in question.

The Judaeans are even depicted alongside ancient Greeks and there is no apparent dissimilarity between the two groups. This lends credence to the testimony of Flavius Josephus who indicates to us that the ancient Judaeans and Greeks were physically indistinguishable but for the circumcision of the Judaeans.

“Wherefore they desired his permission to build them a Gymnasium at Jerusalem. And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks.”
-Flavius Josephus, Antiquities 12.241

Of course the ancient Judaeans were indeed of the same racial stock as the ancient Greeks, and many other proofs of this are to be found in classical history and archaeology as well as the Christian Scriptures.

https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-dorian-danaan-israelite-greeks

An archaeogenetic study titled Genome-Wide Diversity in the Levant Reveals Recent Structuring by Culture has proven that the ancient Levantine populations were akin to modern Europeans and not the modern day inhabitants of Middle-Eastern/North-African genetic stock.

“Levant populations today fall into two main groups: one sharing more genetic characteristics with modern-day Europeans and Central Asians, and the other with closer genetic affinities to other Middle Easterners and Africans.”

“We reconstructed the genetic structure of the Levantines and found that a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners”

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003316

This information affirms the testimony of the Scriptures which clearly describe the ancient Israelites as Europoid. Here we will examine these Biblical proofs.

“4 Thy neck is as an ivory tower; thine eyes are as pools in Esebon, by the gates of the daughter of many: thy nose is as the tower of Libanus, looking toward Damascus.”
-Song of Solomon 7.4

Here we see the woman described has skin like ivory indicating hyperdepigmentation. Her eyes are described as pools of water such as those of Heshbon. The pools of Heshbon can be seen still today and these are typically green or sometimes blue. The nose of the woman is described as a tower which must describe an upright and narrow nose as seen in the Nordic race.

“10 My kinsman is white (tsach, H6703, leukos, 3022) and ruddy (adom, H122, purrhos, G4450), chosen out from myriads.”
-Song of Solomon 5.10

Strong’s G4450, purros: 
“fiery red
From pur; fire-like, i.e. (specially), flame- colored — red.”

Strong’s H122, adom:
“red, ruddy
From ‘adam; rosy — red, ruddy.”

Strong’s G3022, leukos:
“white.
From luke (“light”); white — white.”

Strong’s H6703, tsach:
“clear, dry, plainly, white
From tsachach; dazzling, i.e. Sunny, bright, (figuratively) evident — clear, dry, plainly, white.”

The descriptors white, red, fire-like, rosy, sunny, bright, clear and white can only describe Europoids. Only a depigmented specimen can exhibit rosiness or ruddiness and only light skin may be rightly described as bright, clear or white.

“12 And he sent and fetched him: and he was ruddy (admoni, H132, purrazo, G4449), with beauty of eyes, and very goodly to behold. And the Lord said to Samuel, Arise, and anoint David, for he is good.”
-1 Samuel 16.12

These same terms describe David once again in a later passage from the same book.

“42 And Goliath saw David, and despised him; for he was a lad, and ruddy (admoni, H132, purrazo, G4449), with a fair countenance.”
-1 Samuel 17.42

Strong’s G4449, purrazo:
“be red.
From purrhos; to redden (intransitively) — be red.”

Strong’s H132, admoni:
“red, ruddy
Or (fully) admowniy {ad-mo-nee’}; from ‘adam; reddish (of the hair or the complexion) — red, ruddy.”

Again we see an Israelite is described as ruddy however this time it is translated from different but related words. We see here that Strong’s offers the definition “reddish (of the hair or the complexion)” for H132 and this matches the English definition provided by Gesenius.

“7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter (tsachach, H6705, lampo, G2989) than milk, they were purified as with fire, their polishing was superior to sapphire stone.”
-Lamentations 4.7

Where the Septuagint reads “they were purified as with fire” the King James reads “they were more ruddy (adom, H119) in body than rubies”.

Strong’s G2989, lampos:
“give light, shine.
A primary verb; to beam, i.e. Radiate brilliancy (literally or figuratively) — give light, shine.”

Strong’s H6705, tsachach:
“be whiter
A primitive root; to glare, i.e. Be dazzling white — be whiter.”

Strong’s H119, adom:
“be dyed, made red ruddy
To show blood (in the face), i.e. Flush or turn rosy — be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)”

Here we see Israelites described as white or dazzling to a degree comparable to milk. They are also described as rosy or ruddy. Of course these terms can only describe the contrast of pale skin and the blood flowing through it giving parts of the skin a rosy hue. We see at the end of this verse that their polishing is compared to sapphire stone and this most likely describes the blue veins which can be seen through pale skin.

“22 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the house of Jacob, whom he set apart from Abraham, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall he now wax pale (chavar, H2357).”
-Isaiah 29.22

Strong’s H2357: 
“wax pale
A primitive root; to blanch (as with shame) — wax pale.”

The Greek text of this verse reads “neither shall he now change countenance” which relays the same message but does not use the expression “wax pale”. Of course to wax pale one must first have clear pale skin which may be rosy with blood. If Jacob was physically unable to wax pale then the words of the prophet would be redundant, which the words of God never are. Of course Jacob, being depigmented, could wax pale.

“7 Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be purified: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter (laban, H3835, leukaino, G3021) than snow.”
-Psalm 51.7

Strong’s G3021, leukainos:
“make white, whiten.
From leukos; to whiten — make white, whiten.”

Strong’s H3835, laban:
“make brick, be made, make whiter
A primitive root; to be (or become) white; also (as denominative from lbenah) to make bricks — make brick, be (made, make) white(-r).”

Notice that the natural state of the speaker when purified and cleansed is white and so this must be how the psalmist perceived himself to naturally appear.

“25And the first came out red (admoni, H132, purrazo, 4449), hairy all over like a skin; and she called his name Esau.”
-Genesis 25.25

While Esau’s offspring were a mongrelized brood, he himself was a pedigreed Hebrew and twin brother of Jacob himself. 

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation and Multiculturalism’
https://basileionhierateuma.home.blog/2019/05/24/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation-and-multiculturalism/

Here we see Esau the Hebrew described with the very same term applied to David in 1 Samuel. It seems that here Esau’s redness must describe the hair in which he was covered. While hairiness may not be a desirable feature it is very prevalent in Northern Europe, and Scandinavia is a contender for the most hirsute region on earth.

The name Adam itself is derived from Strong’s H119 meaning “to show blood in the face”, “flush or turn rosy” or “be made ruddy”. Many claim Adam derives from adamah (soil), but this defies all convention whereby the smaller component (adam) is the root of the larger derivative (adamah). Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance specifically tells us in the entry for Adam (H120) that it derives from H119.

‘Adam: the Patriarch of One Race’ https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/adam-the-patriarch-of-one-race/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’ https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

Here I will share some apocryphal sources describing various biblical characters. While the authenticity of these texts may be questioned, they surely do indicate to us how the racial traits of the Israelites have been percieved in the past. These accounts are quite clear in their meaning and require no further elaboration from myself.

Description of Abraham’s wife Sarah from the Dead Sea Scrolls Genesis Apocryphon, Column 10:
“How fair are her breasts and how beautiful all her whiteness!”

The Book of Noah 106.2:
“And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose and the hair of his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful.”

I believe that in light of the provided evidence it is clear that the ancient Israelites were racially Europoid. Despite the best efforts of our adversary to persuade us otherwise, our Christian ancestors surely did not convert to a racially alien faith, nor do we owe our Christian heritage to an alien race.

‘Syro-Levantine Europoids: the Memory of Shem’s Blood in Western Asia’ https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=498025400801293&id=296739117596590



The Noahite Nations: the Hamites

‘Noah Damning Ham’
-Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov

The name Ham (H2525) means “hot” or “warm” (Gesenius’ and Strongs’) and fittingly his descendants dwelt generally in the Southern reaches of the Adamic world. Many scholars have sought to find an identity for certain of the non-Adamic races among the Hamites on account of the fact that the Hamites had territories established in Northern and North Eastern Africa. This is only a desperate attempt to include all the diverse hominids on the planet in the family of Noah which is not borne out by any honest attempt to identify the Hamites in the historical and archaeological records.

As we will see in this presentation, the Hamites were racially akin to the other descendants of Adam, and their nations, tribes and cities were certainly established by Caucasoid stock. Noah was chosen to preserve the Adamic race because he was “perfect in his race” (Genesis 6.9, genea, Strong’s G1074 meaning “race” or “family”) and his wife must have certainly been of the same stock so that Noah’s racial purity would serve its purpose (Tobit 4.12). It cannot reasobably be imagined that his son Ham was racially dissimilar to Japheth and Shem.

‘Adam: The Patriarch of One Race’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/adam-the-patriarch-of-one-race/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

‘The Noahite Nations: the Japhethites’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/12/07/the-noahite-nations-the-japhethites/

Cush, Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabtechah, Sheba and Dedan.

That Cush was the progenitor of the Ethiopians there can be little doubt. Throughout the Septuagint Kuwsh is translated as Αιθιοπία/Aethiopia. Josephus tells us “time has not at all hurt the name of Cush; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Cushites” (Antiquities 1.6.2).

In Exodus 2 Moses flees Egypt and meets with a tribe of the Midianites (descendants of Abraham and Keturah, Genesis 25.1-2) from whom he took a wife. In Numbers 12.1 it is apparent that these Midianites inhabited the land of Cush. Abraham sent his sons by Keturah “into the east country” (Genesis 25.6) which is most probably that land that is called Cush at Genesis 2:13.

The river of Pishon in Genesis 2.11 is said to encompass the land of Havilah which can be located in Arabia (Genesis 25.18, 1 Samuel 15.7). The river Hiddekel of Genesis 2.14 “flows forth over against the Assyrians” and the Septuagint translates the river’s name as Tigris. The river Perath is certainly the Euphrates (see Strong’s and Gesenius’ entries for H6578) and is referred to as such in the Septuagint. Certainly the geography of Genesis 2 indicates that the Cush of Genesis 2.13 is in Asia.

Herodotus calls Susa in Persia the “city of Memnon”, an Ethiopian king (The Histories 5.53-54) and Memnon was regarded as its founder (Strabo, Geography 15.3.2). Relating a tradition concerning Memnon Diodorus Siculus has an Ethiopia in Asia sending military aid to the Trojans, including Assyrians and “men of Susiana” (Library of History 2.22.1-5, 4.75.4). Herodotus mentions the “Ethiopians of Asia” (Histories 3.94, 7.70) and likewise Josephus has Ethiopians in Asia (Antiquities 1.6.2).

While Herodotus describes black and wooly-haired “Ethiopians” (Histories 3.101, 7.70) Diodorus Siculus provides a more complete picture of the racial state of ancient Ethiopia. After describing the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus Siculus goes on to describe in contrast the primitive hominids dwelling in Ethiopia and nearby regions.

“1 But there are also a great many other tribes of the Ethiopians, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of Arabia, and still others residing in the interior of Libya. 2 The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in colour and have flat noses and woolly hair. As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast, not so much, however, in their temper as in their ways of living; for they are squalid all over their bodies, they keep their nails very long like the wild beasts, and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another; 3 and speaking as they do with a shrill voice and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life as these are found among the rest of mankind, they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs.” 
-Library of History, 3.8.1

When describing the civilized Ethiopians Diodorus makes no mention of their physical characteristics, but when he mentions the savages the first things he notes are their black skin, flat noses and wooly hair. I think that if Diodorus had observed these physical traits among the civilized Ethiopians, he would not have made specific note of them among the savage Ethiopians. It is very doubtful there were any purely Adamic Ethiopians in Diodorus’ time, but certainly there was a remnant of their civilization and blood.

In section 1.23 in the second book of Pomponious Mela’s Chorographia he makes mention of Leucaethiopians or White Ethiopians inhabiting a certain region along the Libyan Sea.

“On those shores washed by the Libyan Sea, however, are found the Libyan Aegyptians, the White Aethiopians, and, a populous and numerous nation, the Gaetuli. Then a region, uninhabitable in its entire length, covers a broad and vacant expanse.”

In section 5.8 of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History we read again of White Ethiopians.

“If we pass through the interior of Africa in a southerly direction, beyond the Gaetuli, after having traversed the intervening deserts, we shall find, first of all the Liby-Egyptians, and then the country where the Leucaethiopians dwell.”

These sources do not agree on a single precise location for these White Ethiopians but both attest to their existence and place them near the Libyan-Egyptians and the Berber tribe of the Gaetuli. It is probable that many fled Ethiopia in the wake of the incursions of Nilotic and Bantu tribes, but the most likely cause of this dispersion is the deportation of of the Ethiopians and Egyptians by Esarhaddon prophecied in Isaiah 20 and attested to in Assyrian inscriptions. Thus we see them neighbouring these Libyan-Egyptians, also seemingly uprooted from their original homelands. Undoubtedly these deportations contributed greatly to the decline of genuine Cushite blood in Ethiopia.

In the 4th-century AD a remnant of the Cushites continued to be perceived as distinct from the black tribes of the region. A 4th century victory stela commemorating the Axumite king Ezana contains inscriptions describing separate ethnic groups dwelling in ancient Nubia: Kushites and Noba/Nubians. The Nubians themselves seem to be divided into “red” and “black” groups while both are distinguished from the Cushites. Reading from RIE 189, Bernard et al. (1991:263):

“7.By the power of the Lord of All I made war on the Noba once 8.the confederations of the Noba had made war, having acted haughtily. “They will not cross the Takkazē!” said the confeder9.ations of the Noba. At that time they had wrought havoc upon the peoples of the Mangurto and the Khasa and the Barya, and the blacks 10.made war on the reds. … 28.And I reached the Kushites and killed them and took [others] prisoner at the 29.confluence of the Nile and the Takkazē rivers … And from there I sent the division of Ḥalēn, the division of Lūkēn, and 35.the division of Sabarāt, Falḥa, and Ṣerā’ down the Nile against the four towns of 36.straw of the Noba: [the town of] Negwase; [and] the towns of brick of the Kushites which the Noba had captured, Tabito [and] 37.Fertoti. And they reached the territory of the Red Noba, and my tr38.oops returned safe and sound, having taken prisoners and killed and seized booty by the power of the Lord of Hea39.ven.”

The 16th century Berber explorer Leo Africanus mentioned the existence of various “white” or “olive” groups and individuals inhabiting the Horn of Africa, comprising much of the population of the Adal Sultanate and Mogadishu Sultanate (The History and Description of Africa, Hakluyt Society, pgs. 52-53). He further asserts that pockets of other “white” or “olive” skinned residents could also be found on two small islands north of Socotra and in parts of the Zanguebar coast (ibid. pg. 88).

Many look at the average Ethiopian, or select tribes of Ethiopia and see that they have dark brown or black skin and often have nappy hair. Some tribes in Ethiopia are in fact negroes (hereafter Congoids, the appropriate racial classification) but these are not autocthonous nor are they the majority. These Congoid populations in the Horn of Africa descend from more recent Nilotic and Bantu migrations alien to ancient Ethiopia. The fact is, that the racial archetype of Ethiopia (Aethiopid) is a subtype of the Caucasoid race and not the Congoid race. Aethiopids are a Mediterranid stabilized with a Congoid element with other Caucasoid influences in certain Aethiopic subtypes.

Aethiopids have large braincases and high vaulted skulls whereas Congoids have smaller braincases and low vaulted skulls. Aethiopids have no protrusion of the jaws as do Congoids and they also lack the large teeth of the Congoid race. The Aethiopid race lacks the rectangular shape of the palate and eye orbit typical of Congoids and the large and round nasal cavity of the Congoid is also absent in the Aethiopid.

Aethiopids typically have lighter skin and sometimes wavy or moderately curly hair. Aethiopids do not exhibit the wide and flat nose of the Congoid race and rather have long and narrow noses. They have limbs of typical Caucasoid proportions which lack the extra length of the Congoid’s limbs. They are by no means Congoid either in their morphology or craniometry. In layman’s terms they appear as if the skin of a Negroe was draped over the flesh and bone of a Caucasian. The American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon explains the racial state of the Horn of Africa today very well where he states:

“On the basis of these correlations, it is evident that the partly negroid appearance of Ethiopians and of Somalis is due to a mixture between whites and negroes, and that the Ethiopian cannot be considered the representative of an undifferentiated stage in the development of both whites and blacks, as some anthropologists would have us believe. On the whole, the white strain is much more numerous and much more important metrically, while in pigmentation and in hair form the negroid influence has made itself clearly seen.”
-Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe 9.8

https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI8.htm

Another matter of anthropological interest to Ethiopia is the fact that Ethiopia is ethno-linguistically Afro-Asiatic. The various Congoid peoples generally speak Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan languages which are distinct from the Afro-Asiatic languages spoken by the autocthones of Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Afro-Asiatic-languages

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Niger-Congo-languages

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nilo-Saharan-languages

Today the autocthonous Afro-Asiatic speakers of the Horn of Africa retain a large portion of identifiable Eurasian genetic markers. The percentage of identifiable Eurasian markers peaks in Semitic and Cushitic speaking populations but also extends into adjacent populations. This is to say nothing of the regionally African genetic markers which cannot be clearly identified with any specific populations and which may be of Caucasoid origin.

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632/tab-figures-data

In Biblical times Ethiopia is one of the first Adamic nations to be lost to miscegenation.

“For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.”
-Isaiah 43.3

It seems God placed these Hamites between Israel and the non-Adamic sub-Saharan Congoid tribes who had crossed the desert and begun to move into Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia and Egypt exist as nations (in the deracinated modern sense), but certainly the posterity of the original Hamitic inhabitants has been lost.

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

Some point to Jeremiah 13.23 as evidence that the Ethiopians originated as a black skinned race.

“23If the Ethiopian shall change his skin, or the leopardess her spots, then shall ye be able to do good, having learnt evil.”
-Jeremiah 13

However Jeremiah wrote later than Isaiah who spoke in hindsight of God forfeiting Ethiopia and other Hamitic nations in Africa. Thus we should fully expect many of the Ethiopians of the time of Jeremiah to have been darkened and dissimilar to their original racial state. Nonetheless we need not assume that the darkness of the Ethiopians compared to the Israelites was the product of miscegenation as the Hamites were generally of Mediterranean stock. This can be clearly seen in the art of the Egyptians and the “Minoans” who, as we will see later on, are one and the same as the Biblical Philistines. To the pale Israelites such stock would surely have seemed dark in comparison to themselves and other Semites.

‘Physical Descriptions and Depictions of the Adamites, Shemites, Hebrews, Israelites and Judahites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/01/physical-descriptions-of-the-adamites-shemites-hebrews-israelites-and-judahites-2/

The word Ethiopia itself is of interest. It is commonly thought to come from two Greek components. Aitho (to scorch) and ops (the face). Pure-blooded congoids do not commonly suffer greatly from sunburn, and it would seem that aithiops must describe a sunburn or tan. The component aithos itself may be taken to mean “shining” and if we take aithiops to mean “shining face”, then neither can this describe a Congoid, whose face absorbs light rather than reflecting it.

I believe that in light of this evidence the Scriptural narrative and Christian Identity position concerning the Ethiopia of Africa is wholly validated. In Ethiopia we see a land founded by White Hamites grown racially corrupt. After the Nilotic and Bantu expansions out of Central and Western Africa in the 2nd millennium BC and the deportations of the Ethiopians by Esarhadon in the 7th century BC the descendants of Cush in Africa dwindled and darkened.

The names Seba and Havilah occur both in the genealogies of the Cushites and later in the genealogies of the Joktanite Hebrews. This has led to much confusion in regards to the identities of these tribes. While Josephus discusses the Cushite Seba and Havilah identifying them as various Northern, North Eastern African and Arabian tribes, when he discusses the Joktanites he tells us they “inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river [the Kabul river of modern Afghanistan], and in part of Asia adjoining to it.” (Antiquities 1.6.4). The name Seba appears here in Josephus as “Sabeus” and Havilah appears to be “Euilat”. Josephus tells us little else about these Joktanites, but in the last of these essays we will discuss these Hebrews. For now we will continue to seek the Hamites.

Seba corresponds to the Sabean civilization of the Arabian Peninsula centered around Ma’rib in modern Yemen which stood from 1200 BC to 275 AD (see ‘Excavating the Land of Sheba’, Archaeology Odyssey, November-December 2001, p. 44). Strabo mentions Sabaeans in company with the Nabataeans of Arabia (Geography 16.4.19-21) which places these Sabeans in Asia. Josephus refers to the Cushite Seba (Saba in the Septuagint) as “Sabas, who founded the Sabeans” (Antiquities 1.6.2).

The land of Havilah appears to have been located somewhere in the Arabian Peninsula near the Eastern borders of Egypt (Genesis 25.18, 1 Samuel 15.7). In his entry for Chaviylah (Strong’s H2341) Gesenius identifies Havilah with the Avalitae of Ptolemy and Pliny the Elder (Geography 4.7, Natural Histories 6.28) in the North Western tip of modern Somalia on the coast of the Gulf of Aden.

Josephus writes of Sabta as “Sabathes founded the Sabathens, they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans” (Antiquities 1.6.2), the Astaborans being a tribe of ancient Ethiopia. In his entry for Cabta (H5454) Gesenius identifies it with ancient Saba on the African coast of the Red Sea near the site of modern Arkiko (Strabo, Geography 16.4.10, Ptolemy, Geography 4.7). We need not seek conflict between these identifications.

In the Septuagint Raamah is translated as Ρεγμά/Rhegma, a town on the Arabian shore of the Persian Gulf (Ptolemy, Geography 4.7). We might also reasonably connect Raamah to the Rhammanitae as more recent scholars have. Strabo places the Rhammanitae in Marsiaba/Marib in modern Yemen (Geography 16.4.24), a location well within the apparent domain of the Cushites.

Sabtechah unfortunately eludes me as it has many scholars throughout the ages. No landmarks or tribes seem to retain this name in any recognizable form. While Josephus confidently tells us “Sabactas settled the Sabactens” (Antiquities 1.6.2) no tribe known as Sabactens appears in any other historical source. A similar name, Sabatok, appears in Egyptian records, but unfortunately the location is not certain and therefore cannot be compared to the geographical spread of the other Cushites.

Josephus mentions a city called Saba in the African Ethiopia “encompassed by the Nile quite round, and the other rivers, Astapus and Astaboras” which “Cambyses afterwards named Meroe” (ibid. 2.10.2). Since Josephus identifies Seba with the Sabeans, the Southern Saba may have been established by the younger Sheba, son of Raamah, though this cannot be determined with certainty.

In his entry for Dedan (H1719) Gesenius identifies Dedan with the island of Daden in the Baharein islands of the Persian Gulf (Forster, Geography of Arabia 1.38.63), a probable identification considering the proximity to Rhegma. Some scholars have sought to identify Dedan with the city of the same name, the capital of the ancient Arabian kingdom of Lihyan, but this is more likely the capital of the Shemitic Dedanites (Genesis 25.3, 1 Chronicles 1.32) who seem to have bordered on Edom (Jeremiah 49.8, 25.23, Ezekiel 25.13).

Mizraim, Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, Casluhim, Philistim and Caphtorim.

There can be no doubt that the Mizraim of Scripture are the Egyptians. Throughout the Septuagint Mitsrayim is rendered
Αιγύπτος/Egypt. Josephus writes “The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name; for all we who inhabit this country [Judaea] called Egypt Mestre, and the Egyptians Mestreans.” (Antiquities 1.6.2).

Mitsrayim (H4714) is the dual form of matsowr (H4693/H4692), meaning “defense” or “fortress” probably in reference to the two regions of Upper and Lower Egypt. Neo-Babylonian texts refer to Egypt as Mizraim and Ugaritic inscriptions refer to it as Msrm. In the Amarna tablets the land of the Pharaohs is called Misri, and Assyrian records call it Mu-sur.

Writing at a time long after the conquest of Egypt by the Nilotic Nubians some ancient Greek historians noted that certain Egyptians had complexions that were “melanchroes” and hair that was “oulotrichos” and many translators over the years have rendered these words into English as “black” and “wooly haired” while others, such as Robin Waterfield and Carolyn Dewald rendered these words as “dark skinned” and “curly haired”.

Oulotrichos literally and simply means “curly (oulo) haired (trichos)” and no component corresponds to the Greek word for wool (erion). Melanchroes refers to any complexion percieved as dark comparative to the pallour of the typical ancient Greek which is evident in one excerpt from Homer’s Odyssey:

“With this, Athena touched him [Odysseus] with her golden wand. A well-washed cloak and a tunic she first of all cast about his breast, and she increased his stature and his youthful bloom. Once more he grew dark of color [melanchroies], and his cheeks filled out, and dark grew the beard about his chin.”
-Odyssey 16.172-176

It is clear from the context that Homer means describes a swarthy complexion rather than blackness and intends to describe Odysseus regaining his youthful color. It would be absurd to think that during the process of rejuvenation Odysseus turned from white to black as a Negroe, this despite the numerous ancient artistic portrayals of Odysseus as a typical ancient Greek.

It is most probable that these Classical writers such as Herodotus were describing relatively swarthy and curly haired variants of the Mediterranean race and not black skinned and wooly headed Congoids. Of course at the time of these authors it is entirely plausible that the Egyptians had become mingled with Nubian Congoids like many modern Egyptians, however it is very clear that other ancient writers did not perceive the Egyptians to be homogeneous with the Congoids and Aethiopids dwelling to their South.

Here Manilius states that the Egyptians were not as dark as the Ethiopians having a medium skin tone.

“The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it is a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone.”
-Manilius, Astronomica 4.724

Strabo tells us that the people of Northern India looked much like the Egyptians while the inhabitants of Southern India are said to have been dark like the Ethiopians.

“As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.”
-Strabo, Geography 15.1.13

Philostratus informs us here that the Egyptians had a lighter complexion than their southerly neighbours.

“Now the inhabitants of the marches [Nubian-Egyptian border] are not yet fully black but are half-breeds in matter of color, for they are partly not so black as the Ethiopians, yet partly more so than the Egyptians.”
-Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 6.2

Egypt was certainly originally a high civilization of a Caucasoid racial character. It is clear from the art of the Egyptians throughout the ages that the general populace of Egypt was always of Caucasoid stock with varying degrees of mongrelization. The only representions of Congoids in ancient Egyptian art depict slaves and foreigners.

https://christogenea.org/gallery/white-ancient-egypt

It is now pertinent to discuss attitudes towards race in ancient Egypt for which we will examine some excerpts from Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, James B. Pritchard, editor, Princeton University Press, 1969. First we shall read from page 441 and The Admonitions of Ipu-Wer, dated to approximately 2300-2050 BC:

“A man regards his son as his enemy.…A man of character goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land….Foreigners have become people everywhere….”

A footnote says “The term “men, humans, people,” was used by Egyptians to designate themselves, in contrast to their foreign neighbors, who were not conceded to be real people.”.

On page 366 we read A Hymn to Amon-Re, the original dated to approximately 1775-1575 BC:

“Atum, who made the people, Distinguished their nature, made their life, And separated colors, one from another…”

An introductory note on page 365 says: “Egypt’s world position under her Empire produced strong tendencies toward centralization and unification of Egyptian religion, with universalism and with syncretism of the gods…”.

In the space of a few centuries Egypt had gone from not even regarding foreigners as people to promoting universalism and the cohabitation of the races. This fits well with the Biblical narrative. In the time of Moses the Egyptians were considered good stock, not to be abhorred by the Israelites (Deuteronomy 23.7), but in later times they are portrayed as an alien people which Israel is chastised for mingling with (Jeremiah 2.16-22, Ezekiel 16.23-26, Ezra 9.1 et al.).

In Ezekiel 30.5 the Egyptians are listed among “all the mixed multitude” alongside Ethiopia and Libya. Isaiah 43.3 has Egypt along with Seba and Ethiopia as nations God has forfeit to preserve Israel, these nations having served as a buffer between the non-Adamic sub-Saharan tribes to their South and the Israelites to the North.

It has been proven by archaeogenetics that the ancient Egyptians had less sub-Saharan admixture than even Egypt’s modern Caucasoid inhabitants which still have fairly little. Most of this admixture was introduced after the Islamic era though some undoubtedly occured in more ancient times.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Josephus places the Ludim in Libya (Antiquities 1.6.2). Pliny mentions a river called Laud South of the Atlas Mountains not far from the river Phuth (Natural History 5.1.1-2) which is also mentioned by Pliny the Elder (Geography 4.1.3). Phut of course was a brother of Mizraim, the father of the Ludim, and so we should not be surprised to find the names of both Phut and the Ludim in North Western Africa.

The Anamim and Lehabim are quite elusive, and probably for good reason. Josephus lists them among other Egyptian tribes of which he says “we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown” (Antiquities 1.6.2).

The Anamim are refered to in Assyrian records as Anami. The Lehabim are sometimes identified with the Libyans, but this is highly doubtful as the only connection is a phonetic similarity and there are two other nations more plausibly associated with Libya. These will be discussed further on when we get to Phut.

Naphtuhim seems to be a compound name derived from the Egyptian phrase p-t-mhw, consisting of the definite article, a generic name for foreign tribute-bearing countries and a word for the direction “north”, giving the meaning “the country of the north”, most likely the delta of the Nile. Pathrusim is a loan from Egyptian p-t-rsy, of a similar composition to p-t-mhw, but designating “the country of the south”. In the Septuagint Pathrusim/Pathruciy is rendered as Παθούρης/Pathros. Pathruciy is cognate with Akkadian Paturisi. In Ezekiel 29.14 we read that Pathros is the land of the Egyptian’s nativity.

The Egyptian form of the name Kacluchiym/Casluhim is preserved in the Ptolemaic inscriptions of the Temple of Kom Ombo as the toponym Kasluhet. Also found in this list of names we find Kaptar corresponding to Caphtor. There is little else known of the Casluhim, but there is more to be said of their descendants, the Philistim, and their cousins, the Caphtorim.

Some skeptics of the Bible suggest that the mention of the Philistines in Genesis 21.32-34 and 26.1-18 is an anachronism. They base this on an alleged lack of evidence for a Philistine presence in Canaan. To address this criticism we must first identify the Philistines in the historical and archaeological records. The Biblical record tells us that the Philistines came from the land of Caphtor (Amos 9.7, Deuteronomy 2.23), and that they were “the remnant of the seacoast of Caphtor” (Jer. 47.4). We ought then to seek to identify Caphtor in search of the Philistines.

Bryant G. Wood, Ph.D. of the Associates for Biblical Research has written an article entitled “The Genesis Philistines” for the March 2006 ABR Electronic Newsletter investigating the Philistines. There he makes his case that the Philistines have been around as a people for a long time and had ties in ancient Canaan very early in recorded history. Dr. Wood’s article provides evidence that supports the identification of Crete as Caphtor, the original seat of the Philistines and the “Minoans”/Cretans as the Philistines themselves.

https://biblearchaeology.org/research/patriarchal-era/3640-the-genesis-philistines?highlight=WyJhYnJhaGFtIiwiYWJyYWhhbSdzIiwiJ2FicmFoYW0iXQ==

In his entry for Kerethiy (H3774) Gesenius writes, “Philistine, especially used of the inhabitants of the southern part of Philistia, 1 Sa. 30.14; Eze. 25.16; Zephaniah 2.5”. In the Septuagint Kerethiy is sometimes translated as Κρήτας (Ezekiel 25.16)/Κρητών (Zephaniah 2.5)/Cretan. In his entry for Kaphtor (H3731) Gesenius favours the identification of Caphtor with Crete.

Since at least the 19th century Crete has been the favoured location for the Biblical Caphtor, and much earlier the Septuagint translators associated the Philistine tribe of the Cherethites with Crete. Recent genetic studies of Philistine remains from Ashkelon have now left little room to doubt that the homeland of the Philistim and Caphtorim was in the Aegean.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-dna-sheds-new-light-biblical-philistines-180972561/

Some have imagined that the Philistines were a bastard race like the Canaanites because Goliath the giant was called a Philistine. Goliath was not actually a Philistine by race, but was only a mercenary in the Philistine army. He was one of the sons of Rapha the Canaanite giant, for which see 1 Chronicles 20.4-8 where it is stated that the giants in Gath, including Goliath, were “of the stock of Rapha”, the progenitor of the Rephaites (Genesis 14.5 and 15.20, 2 Samuel 5.18, 22 and 23.13 et al.).

We can be sure that the Philistines were largely Adamic. In Zechariah 9.6 God says, in a curse on Philistia, “a mongrel race (mamzer (H4464) in the Hebrew, allogenes (G241) in the Greek) will dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines”. The implication there is that the Philistines of Ashdod were largely Adamic at this time.

This further explains why God permitted Samson’s marriage to a Philistine woman (Judges 14.4). While the Mizraites of the South have almost certainly all become mongrelized, the Philistine Mizraites may not have, and today many modern Greeks have substantial genetic continuity with the Cretans/Philistines.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-analysis-sheds-light-mysterious-origins-ancient-greeks-180964314/

There may be an allusion to the Philistines in Egypt before they moved North to Crete where Herodotus writes “Hence they [the Egyptians] commonly call the pyramids after Philition, a shepherd who at that time fed his flocks about the place.” (The Histories 2.128). Some scholars suppose that Philition represents the Philistines in their original habitation among the other Mizraites.

Phut.

Put is surely to be found in ancient Libya. Throughout the Septuagint Phut is rendered Λιβύες/Libyans. Josephus writes: “Phut also was the founder of Libya, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself: there is also a river in the country of Moors which bears that name; whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiographers mention that river and the adjoining country by the apellation of Phut: but the name it has now has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mesraim, who was called Lybyos.” (Antiquities 1.6.2).

Pliny the Elder and Ptolemy both place the river Phuth on the west side of Mauritania (“the land of the Moors” in Josephus), and Pliny also mentions a nearby river called Laud, probably related to the Ludim (Natural History 5.1.1-2 , Geography 4.1.3). Ptolemy also mentions a city called Putea in Libya (Geography 4.3.39). In Coptic Phaiat is a name for Libya Aegypti, North Western Egypt.

Both Puwt and Luwbiy are translated in the Septuagint as Λιβύες/Libyans which raises the question of which of these two nations are the true stock of the ancient Libyans. Josephus’ explanation seems perfectly plausible; that Libya was first populated by Phutites but later named for the descendants of the Mizraite Libyos, most likely the Biblical Lubim. Many of the modern day Berbers descend from the ancient Libyans, a clear remnant of a once White North West Africa.

Canaan, Sidon, Heth, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, Hivites, Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, Zemarites and Hamathites.

Canaan/Kena`an (H3667) derives ultimately from the Semitic root knʿ meaning “to be low, humble, subjugated”. Strong’s says it derives immediately from kana (H3667) meaning “to bend the knee; hence, to humiliate”. Fittingly in Genesis 9 we read:

“25And he said, Cursed be the servant Chanaan, a slave shall he be to his brethren.

26And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Sem, and Chanaan shall be his bond-servant.

27May God make room for Japheth, and let him dwell in the habitations of Sem, and let Chanaan be his servant.”

I will not speak at any length about the nature of Canaan’s sin which caused him to be cursed in such a way. Suffice it to say that when one compares Genesis 9.20-27 with Leviticus 18.7-8 and 20.11 it is apparent that Canaan was born of incest. This is why Canaan was cursed for the sin of his father Ham.

Later on the Canaanites would be found mingled among the Kenites (sons of Cain) and Rephaim (Nephilim giants) and other races of unknown origin such as the Kenizzites, Perizzites and Kadmonites (Genesis 15.19-21). Many times throughout Scripture Israel is chastised for mingling with the Canaanites, and they are regarded as a polluted race.

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/biblical-canaanites-who-are-they

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’ 
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

The Canaanites settled the Levant primarily, the region known by the general North West Semitic name Kana’an. It appears as ki-na-ah-na in the Amarna letters, and knʿn is found on coins from Phoenicia in the last half of the 1st millennium. The name first occurs in Greek in the writings of Hecataeus of Miletus as Χνᾶ and as Χαναὰν in the Septuagint.

Many scholars seek the origins of the Phoenicians with certain tribes of the Canaanites. It can however be demonstrated from a comparison of Scripture and classical histories that the people first known as Phoenicians were not Canaanites. Rather they were primarily Israelites of the tribes of Asher, Zebulon, Naphtali and Dan.

The Phoenicia of early Greek poets and geographers stretched from the edges of the Nile to Northern Syria and included all of the coastland inhabited by the Northern house of Israel. Most biblical maps offered by modern scholars blatantly deny the borders of Israel as described in Scripture in order to accommodate the falsehood that the Phoenicians were distinct from the Israelites.

Scripture clearly describes Israelite territory extending far into the region of Phoenicia and containing the famous Phoenician ports, Tyre and Sidon. Even the region most scholars call Phoenicia does not correspond properly to ancient Phoenicia as the Greeks described it. Rather it corresponds loosely to the Roman administrative region of much later times. Of course any faithful student of Scripture must question this contradiction between Scripture and the agendas of modern scholars.

https://christogenea.org/essays/identifying-phoenicians

Later on with the decline of Israelite power in Canaan and the Assyrian deportations of Israel to Media the term Phoenician came to be applied as a catch-all for the inhabitants of Canaan, Israelites or Canaanites. Speaking at such a time and referring to them as Phoenicians Herodotus relates a Persian account of Canaanite origins.

“These people, who had formerly dwelt on the shores of the Erythraean Sea, having migrated to the Mediterranean and settled in the parts which they now inhabit, began at once, they say, to adventure on long voyages, freighting their vessels with the wares of Egypt and Assyria…”
-The Histories 1.1

We might thus conclude that the Canaanites originated on the shores of the Red Sea, a region well within the realm of the other Hamites. Upon migrating to the Levant they began to extend their trade routes to new lands. Most probably they established some of the trade routes later usurped by the Israelites preceding the golden age of Phoenicia. They also must have spread around the Mediterranean Basin with the Israelites.

Despite the Israelite conquest of Canaan, the Jebusites remained among the tribe of Benjamin in Jerusalem (Judges 1.21, Joshua 15.63) along with other Canaanites who either remained or resettled in Judaea (Zechariah 14.21, Susanna 1.56). In Joshua 9.3-27 we read that the Canaanite tribe of the Gibeonites established a covenant of peace with Israel through deception which allowed them to remain in Canaan among the Israelites. In verse 27 we find that they were enslaved for their deception and that “the inhabitants of Gabaon became hewers of wood and drawers of water for the altar of God until this day”. Jesus and the Apostles also allude to the persistence of Canaanite bloodlines in Judaea until their own time.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’ 
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

Josephus refers to “Sidonius, who also built a city of the same name; it is called by the Greeks Sidon” (Antiquities 1.6.2). Strong’s and Gesenius’ entries for Tsiydown (H6721) readily identify him with the historical city of Sidon in modern day Lebanon. While Sidon is commonly thought of as a Canaanite city, and doubtless Canaanite Sidonians always maintained a presence there, it can be established by Scripture that Sidon was a city occupied largely by Israelites in ancient times.

We are fortunate to have ancient Sidonian genetic samples from approximately 1700 BC, before the Israelite conquest of Canaan. The results show that the modern populations of Lebanon are the closest living relatives of the ancient Sidonians.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/07/canaanite-bible-ancient-dna-lebanon-genetics-archaeology/

In Scripture the Jebusites were the early inhabitants of Jerusalem. They are refered to in Akkadian as Yabusi’um and are reckoned by the Assyrians as a tribe of the Amorites. Of course Amorite and Canaanite are terms sometimes used interchangeably in Scripture (Genesis 15.16, 48.22, Joshua 24.15, Judges 1.34 et al.) and so it should be no surprise to see that other Near Eastern records regarded the Jebusites as Amorites.

The Amorites are refered to in Akkadian as Amurru, in Sumerian as Mar.tu and in Egyptian as Amar. The Amorites inhabited all the land from West of the Euphrates in Canaan and Syria. They were certainly a powerful people (Amos 2.9) who made various incursions into Southern Mesopotamia. On account of their power exceeding the other Canaanite tribes Amorite is used in Scripture as a word for the Canaanites collectively, much as Judah represents the Southern kingdom of Israel and Ephraim the Northern kingdom.

We read in Deuteronomy that “only Og the king of Bashan was left of the Raphaim” (Deuteronomy 3.11), and so it appears that the Amorites were ruled by a Rephaite king, a giant of the stock of the Nephilim. When Israelite spies were sent to Canaan the Amorites were one of the people groups they saw (Numbers 13.29), and they claimed that “all the people whom we saw in it are men of extraordinary stature.” (Numbers 13.32). Undoubtedly the Amorites mingled extensively with the Rephaim.

The Girgashites are refered to in Ugaritic inscriptions as grgs (Girgash) and bn-grgs (sons of Girgash). In Hittite they are called Karkm and in Egyptian records they are known as the Kirkash. Little is known of them besides their names. The land of the Arkites is refered to in Assyrian records as Irkanat and in the Amarna tablets the Arkites are called Irgata. Their city is known today as Tell-Arqa, known to ancient Egyptian records as Arkanatu. Josephus informs us “Arucas possessed Arce, which is in Libanus.” (Antiquities 1.6.2) and Arce seems to correspond to modern Acre in Northern Palestine.

The Sinites are connected to the city of Sinna (Strabo, Geography 16.2.18). St. Jerome also refers to a “civitas Sini” in the same region (Liber Quaestionum Hebraicorum 1). In Akkadian the land of the Sinites is called Siannu and in Ugaritic it is refered to as sn. Aside from the cities named for them nothing else remains of their legacy.

The Arvadites are refered to in the Amarna letters as Arwada and there they are mentioned as allies of the Amorites. The city of Arwad off the coast of Syria still bears their name today. Josephus writes “Arudeus possessed the island Aradus” (Antiquities 1.6.2). In Greek this city was known as Aραδος and in the Septuagint at Ezekiel 27.11 the Arvadites are called υιοί Αραδίων/sons of Arvad. In Ezekiel 27.8 Arvad is rendered Αράδιοι/Arvadites.

The occurrence of the name Zemarite between Arvadite and Hamathite gives a hint as to the locality of the Zemarites and appropriately Zumur is mentioned in the Amarna Letters along with Arwad. The name may survive in the name of Sumra, a village on the seacoast between Tripolis and Arwad. In Akkadian the Zemarites are called Simirra, and in Egyptian they are refered to as Sumur. Josephus tells us “Amathus inhabited in Amathine, which is even now called Amathe by the inhabitants” (Antiquities 1.6.2). This places the Hamathites at modern day Hama in Syria.

The Hivites and Hethites will be the last of the Canaanite tribes to be discussed here as they are to be found generally outside the geographical and cultural realm shared by the rest of the Canaanites. While the bulk of the Canaanites settled in the Levant, it is apparent that two branches extended further North and East.

There is some confusion concerning the Biblical uses of the terms Hivite and Horite. Zibeon is called a Horite (Gen 36.20-30), whereas in verse 2 the same man had been called a Hivite. The Septuagint text of Joshua 9.7 and Genesis 34.2 reads Horite instead of Hivite as in the Masoretic Text. Despite this confusion, the two names occur both in the Septuagint and the Masoretic Text and therefore ought to be sought in the historical and archaeological records.

The Horites seem to be the Hurrians of ancient Near Eastern records, the name Choriy corresponding to Churri, the Akkadian name for the Hurrians. The ethnonym Hivite is not paralleled clearly in any extant ancient extra-Biblical source, however the Hurrian personal name Hu-u-ia is attested in Akkadian. Most probably Hivite/Chivviy is patronymic from the Hurrian personal name Hu-u-ia denoting a specific branch of the Hurrians while Horite/Choriy became associated with the specific Hurrian colony at Seir with which Esau settled.

This explains why Hivite and Horite seem to be used interchangeably when comparing the Septuagint to the Masoretic Text. Some scholars have posited that Hivite in all its occurences is actually a scribal error for Horite, the resh being corrupted into a vav. Whether or not this is the case, we can say that in all probability the Biblical terms Horite and Hivite both refer to Hurrians.

Richard Hess has noted four Hurrian names in the narrative of the conquest of Canaan which demonstrate the antiquity and accuracy of the account (“Getting Personal: What Names in the Bible Teach Us”, Bible Review 13/6, December 1997, 30, 34–36). Piram (king of Jarmuth) and Hoham (king of Hebron) (Joshua 10.3), Sheshai and Talmai (sons of Anak, Joshua 15.14) all have Hurrian names. Talmai (king of Geshur and father-in-law to David, 2 Samuel 3.3, 13.37 and 1 Chronicles 3.2) is the last Hurrian name in the Bible. Piram, Sheshai and Talmai are all common Hurrian names which are found in 15th century BC cuneiform tablets at Nuzi.

In the Amarna letters there is mention of the king of Jerusalem named Abdi-Heba whose name appears to be a theophoric name invoking the Hurrian goddess Hebat (Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton University Press, 1992 p. 270). It is thus evident that the Hurrians were certainly present in Canaan proper in the time of Joshua.

While the bulk of the Hurrians were apparently of Canaanite descent, it is evident that the Hurrian elite were generally of a separate ethnic group of Indo-European extraction which exerted great cultural influence in Hurrian society. The Hurrian language itself is considered by some linguists to be a sister language to Indo-European or an Indo-European language proper (see Arnaud Fournet; Allan R. Bomhard, “The Indo-European Elements in Hurrian”, academia.edu, La Garenne Colombes, Charleston and Arnaud Fournet, “PIE Roots in Hurrian”). We will not discuss the Biblical origin of this Indo-European aristocracy here, but rather will do so in my next essay concerning the Shemites.

https://www.academia.edu/40055347/PIE_roots_in_Hurrian

There is no extant traditional identification for the Biblical Hethites in any ancient literature, but in the 19th century archaeologists began to identify them with the land called hatti matu in Assyrian sources. While I am persuaded that the land of Hatti was indeed settled by Hethites, there are some complex issues surrounding the history of this region. The land of Hatti is mentioned in Assyrian inscriptions as early as the late 3rd millennium BC. The inhabitants, called by archaeologists and linguists Hattians, were speakers of the isolate language Hattic, but in the early 2nd millennium BC the land of Hatti was subdued by a group of Anatolian Indo-European speakers.

These conquerors refered to their own empire as the kingdom of Hattusa and their Assyrian neighbours continued to refer to the land as Hatti, both maintaining forms of the Hattian endonym. The Kingdom of Hattusa was very powerful and influential, and with new archaeological discoveries about the kingdom of Hattusa, Biblical scholars found validation of the Biblical account of powerful Hittite kings. While there is no doubt that the Hittites of Judges 1.26, 1 Kings 10.29/2 Chronicles 1.17, 1 Kings 11.1 and 2 Kings 7.6 are identical with the Indo-Europeans of the kingdom of Hattusa, this identification presents another difficulty.

In other places in the Bible the Hittites are portrayed as less powerful hill tribes native to the land of Canaan. They appear already settled in Canaan in the time of Abraham, placing them in a time before the Indo-European Hittites even appear in the archaeological record. There is also a distinct lack of any archaeological evidence for a presence of Indo-European Hittites in Canaan contemporary to the earliest mentions of Hittites in the Old Testament.

Bryant G. Wood, Ph.D. of the Associates for Biblical Research has written an article entitled “Hittites and Hethites: a Proposed Solution to an Etymological Conundrum” where he endeavours to reconcile the Biblical and archaeological records. Wood proposes that the various references to Hittites in the Bible in their varied forms and constructs can be divided into two groups; references to autochthonous sons of Heth (Hethites) and references to the Anatolian Indo-Europeans of Hattusa (Hittites). Wood’s proposal seems to represent the only solution to this conundrum which properly reconciles the Biblical and archaeological records.

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/54/54-2/JETS_54-2_239-50_Wood.pdf

While Wood does not offer any conclusion as to the identity of the genuine Hethites, I would posit that they must be identified with Hatti in Anatolia and the autocthonous Hattians. I can think of no other plausible reason that the Hebrews would have associated the Indo-Europeans of Hattusa with the name Heth if not because they had settled the land of Hatti. While Hatti is not very close to the rest of the Canaanite nations, neither is it terribly far, and certainly not much farther from Canaan than the domain of the Hivites/Hurrians.

The Noahite Nations: the Japhethites

‘Landscape with Noah’ -Joseph Anton Koch

The name Japheth (H3315) means “expansion” (Strong’s) or “widely extending” (Gesenius’) and fittingly his descendants were dispersed widely across the Mediterranean from Anatolia to Iberia and also throughout Iran, the Caucasus, Russia and Eastern Europe.

While his descendants undoubtedly spread to further regions and diverged into new tribal branches, much of what we know of them is lost to time, unknown events that went unrecorded in remote regions among illiterate peoples. Despite the elusiveness of some of the Japhetic tribes, we will nonetheless endeavour to identify those which can be identified in the historical and archaeological records.

Gomer, Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.

In Jeremiah 51.27 Ashkenaz is mentioned along with Ararat and Minni, both regions near Armenia. Ararat corresponds to Urartu which was centered in the historic Armenian highlands and Minni is the historical Mannaea centered in modern Iranian Azerbaijan adjacent to Armenia. In Armenian tradition, Ashkenaz and his son Togarmah were considered to be the ancestors of the Armenians. Koriun, the earliest Armenian historian, calls the Armenians an “Askanazian nation” in the first line of his work Life of Mashtots. The later Armenian historian Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi also refers to Ashkenaz and Togarmah as the ancestors of the Armenians (History of Armenia 1.6-7).

Josephus identifies the sons of Riphath as
“The Ripheans, now called Paphlagonians” (Antiquities 1.6.1) placing the descendants of Riphath in Northern Anatolia adjacent to Galatia. It is doubtful that the Paphlagonians of Josephus’ time were actually Riphathites, that region having been settled extensively by other tribes for millennia. It is more likely that Josephus is identifying tribes with the locations of their ancestors as they migrated to or from Mesopotamia.

Riphath has been connected by some more recent scholars with the Riphean Mountains of classical Greek geography in whose foothills the Arimaspi (also known as Ripheans, Pomponious Mela, De Situ Orbus, 1.1.C.2) were said to live. While the location of the Riphean Mountains is uncertain, they certainly were quite far from Anatolia and the Caucasus where Riphath’s brothers, cousins and forefathers seem to have settled. Nonetheless it is not impossible that the sons of Riphath reached the Riphean Mountains during the long lapse of the ages.

In the medieval Georgian Chronicles and Moses of Chorene’s History of Armenia Togarmah is portrayed as the progenitor of both the Armenians and the Kartvelians. Haik is said to have been the first son of Togarmah who inherited Mount Ararat and founded the Armenian nation. Kartlos settled North East of Ararat and established Kartli while Heros was the founder of Hereti. Caucus was the forebear of the Caucasians and Egros established Egrisi/Colchis (Stephen H. Rapp, “Studies In Medieval Georgian Historiography: Early Texts And Eurasian Contexts”, Peeters Publishers p. 427).

While these local traditions may not be precisely reliable, we can say with certainty that the various peoples of the Caucasus and Anatolia were traditionally thought to be descended from Gomer. This squares well with the what little Biblical information there is concerning the descendants of Gomer.

Flavius Josephus wrote “For Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, but were then called Gomerites.” (Antiquities 1.6.1). Hippolytus of Rome identified Gomer not as the father of the Galatians, but of their neighbours, the Cappadocians (Chronica 57). There being no relation between the Galatians or the Cappadocians, it seems plausible that the ancient Gomerites were an early tribe of Central Anatolia who came to be associated with its later inhabitants contemporary to Josephus and Hippolytus; the Galatians and Cappadocians.

Some modern scholars have associated Gomer with the Cimmerians based on the vague phonetic similarity. They also point to Josephus’ identification of Gomer with the Galatians, a branch of the Gauls. It being widely known to classical historians and early modern scholars that the Gauls were descendants of the Cimmerians, they came to be associated with Gomer.

It is evident from archaeology that the Cimmerians were not sprung from Gomer, but that they descended from the Khumri of Assyrian records and it can be proven that the Khumri were the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity. Had the Cimmerians descended from Gomer they should have appeared in historical records much earlier than they do since the dispersion of the Noahites occured millennia before the Assyrian captivity of Israel and the concurrent appearance of the Cimmerians in Near Eastern records.

It is certain that the Cimmerians/Kimmeroi were one and the same as the Khumri of Assyrian inscriptions who are none other than the Israelites deported to Media in the 8th century BC. This has been demonstrated fully in E. Raymond Capt’s work Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets, and elaborated upon well by William Finck in his historical essays.

https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-origins-scythians-parthians-related-tribes

https://christogenea.org/essays/german-origins

Magog, Meshech and Tubal.

Herodotus mentions two tribes among those subject to Persian dominion, the Moschi and the Tibareni (The Histories 3.94, 7.78), which resided in the Caucasus region and the North Eastern reaches of Anatolia. Josephus associates Meshech with the Cappadocian “Mosocheni”, also known as the Mushki in Assyrian inscriptions. He also identifies Tubal with the “Thobeles” placing them in Iberia in the Caucasus (Antiquities 1.6.1). Of course the only tribe in the Caucasus that may be soundly identified with the name “Thobeles” is the Tibareni.

Over 1.5 millennia before the Germanic tribe of the Rus conquered the land known now as Russia, Ezekiel wrote of Rosh being the prince of Gog, Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 38). This is no mere coincidence, but rather it is a clear manifestation of the divine inspiration of the prophet Ezekiel. In light of the relationship which the Rus were destined to have with Magog, Meshech and Tubal, we may reasonably associate Mesech and Tubal with the early peoples inhabiting the regions surrounding the Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk. It is apparent however that these could only be later settlements of these Japhetic tribes as they expanded from the Adamic homelands stretching between the Caucasus and Mesopotamia.

Josephus identifies Magog as the ancestor of the Magogites who he says the Greeks called Scythians (Antiquities 1.6.1). While I would certainly agree that the Magogites settled in what was known in Josephus’ time as Scythia, it is apparent from several factors that the Magogites were not the same as the people originally known as Scythians. In the Behistun inscription of Darius the Great the names Scythian and Cimmerian are used interchangeably. The ancient Persians being much better acquainted with the Scythians than Josephus, we must accept that the Cimmerians and Scythians were one and the same people.

The Magogites would have spread into the realm of Scythia at a much earlier time than the Scythians during the gap of over 2 millennia between the dispersion of the Noahites and the earliest trace of the Scythians. The Russian archaeologist S.A. Grigoryev has demonstrated in papers such as The Sintashta Culture and Some Questions of Indo-Europeans Origins and other works that the archaeological remains of the steppe came not from the Scythians, but from their earlier forerunners. He states ”Scythian migration through Iran, Near East and the Caucasus took place at the beginning of the Iron Age.”.

We may soundly conclude that Josephus is once again identifying early Noahites with the inhabitants of their early domains and not necessarily with their real descendants. By the 1st century Scythian had become a convoluted term applied to diverse steppe peoples, and so we might imagine that the Magogites may have been called Scythians in some cases. Nevertheless we can say with certainty that they were not the people first known by that name. The original Scythians, being one and the same as the Cimmerians, were certainly Israelites of the Assyrian captivity.

Madai.

According to Josephus “from Madai came the Madeans, who are called Medes, by the Greeks” (Antiquities 1.6.1). In Assyrian sources Media is refered to as Mada, cognate with Hebrew Maday. Medos was reckoned to be the ancestor of the Medes in classical Greek history. Christian scholars have proposed linking Hebrew Madai and Greek Medos since at least the time of Isidore of Seville in in the 6th century AD (Etymologiae 9.2.28).

Herodotus wrote that “The Medes were formerly called by everyone Arians, but when the Colchian woman Medea came from Athens to the Arians, they changed their name … This is the Medes’ own account of themselves.” (The Histories 7.62). The name Aryan was used as an endonym by the Indo-Aryans who invaded India in the early 2nd millennium BC and, according to Herodotus, Aryan was the original endonym of the Medes. Thus it is reasonable to infer that the Indo-Aryans were largely descended from Madai.

Diodorus Siculus, discussing the conquests of certain Scythian Kings, wrote “It was by these kings that many of the conquered peoples were removed to other homes, and two of these became very great colonies: the one was composed of Assyrians and was removed to the land between Paphlagonia and Pontus [along the Southern shore of the Black Sea], and the other was drawn from Media and planted along the Tanaïs [a river North of the Caucasus mountains which empties into the Black Sea from the North East], its people receiving the name Sauromatae [Sarmatians]. Many years later this people became powerful and ravaged a large part of Scythia” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 2.43.5-7).

Herodotus, writing of the remote Northern reaches of the known world, said “The only people of whom I can hear as dwelling beyond the Ister are the race named Sigynnae, who wear, they say, a dress like the Medes … Their borders reach down almost to the Eneti upon the Adriatic Sea [including perhaps the modern Carinthia in Western Austria], and they call themselves colonists of the Medes; but how they can be colonists of the Medes I for my part cannot imagine. Still nothing is impossible in the long lapse of ages.” (The Histories 5.9). So we see from one of the earliest European records of settlement in Northern Europe that the settlers are said to be of Median extraction.

Thiras.

Josephus writes “Thiras also called those whom he ruled over Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians.” (Antiquities 1.6.1). Tiras is written in Hebrew as Thiyrac, and so it is hardly a great change that Josephus alleges. In the Jerusalem Targum and the Targum of Jonathan Thiyrac (H8494) is rendered as Thrace (Gesenius).

The Thracians were a numerous people, so much so that Herodotus called them the second-most powerful people in the world after the Indians (The Histories 5.3). Despite Hellenization and repeated invasions of the Balkans some Thracians retained their identity, with a single tribe, the Bessi, persisting until the 4th century AD. Undoubtedly today the Thracians remain as a substantial ancestral group among South Eastern Europeans.

Javan, Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim.

Javan is traditionally associated with the Ionian Greeks following Josephus (Antiquities 1.6.1). In the Behistun Rock inscription they are called “Yavana” where Sir Henry Rawlinson has “Ionians”. In the Greek of the Septuagint Yavan is translated as Ἰωύαν (Iōuan). These Ionians settled in the coasts of Anatolia and many of its islands and were the founding stock of the Athenians.

Many scholars have identified Elishah with the early Cypriots, as in ancient times part of the island of Cyprus was known as Alashiya in Egyptian, Hittite, Akkadian, Mycenean and Ugaritic inscriptions. Josephus says “Cethimus [son of Javan] possessed the island Cethima: it is now called Cyprus … and one city there is in Cyprus that has been able to preserve its denomination; it has been called Citius [or Citium] by those who use the language of the Greeks, and has not, by the use of that dialect, escaped the name of Cethim.” (Antiquities 1.6.1).

Dodanim in the Masoretic Text is a scribal error by the Hebrew copyists, the dalet and resh in block Hebrew being easily confused. This is evident in the Septuagint which translates the paleo-Hebrew text of Genesis 10.4 with Ῥόδιοι/Rhodians instead of Dodanim. In the Septuagint text of Ezekiel 27.15 Dedan (Strong’s H7719) bene (H1121), meaning “the men of Dedan” is translated as “Rhodians”.

Many scholars have conjectured a Japhetic Javanite origin for the Dorian and Danaan Greeks. There is no clear basis for this, and in fact history attests that this is certainly not the case. Greek civilization was formed from a number of tribes of differing ancestral origin who coalesced into a relatively unified culture and so we ought not to be surprised to find that there were Greek tribes not descended from Javan. This is indeed the case and it can be proven through Scripture, history and archaeology that the Danaan and Dorian Greeks were Israelites from the tribe of Dan and the Manassehite city of Tel Dor.

https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-dorian-danaan-israelite-greeks

Josephus identifies Tarshish as the region of Cilicia and relates this to the city of Tarsus (Antiquities 1.6.1) and in Hittite inscriptions part of Cilicia is refered to as Tarza. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and the Targum of Jonathan all translate Tarshish as Carthage, presumably referring to the region geographically rather than ethnically. It can be established that the Carthaginians were in fact a colony of the Israelites and not Canaanites as commonly supposed and that the famous “ships of Tarshish” mentioned in Kings, Chronicles, Psalms, and the prophets were engaged in trade between Tarshish and Israel.

https://christogenea.org/essays/identifying-phoenicians

In their Greek-English lexicon, Liddell & Scott readily identify Tartessus as “the Tarshish of Scripture” and Gesenius identifies Tarshiysh as Tartessus. It is not at all implausible that the Tarshishites settled on both sides of the sea, and so we need not assume there is conflict between the identifications of Tarshish with regions in both Anatolia and the Western Mediterranean.

The Christian Answer to the Jewish Question

Jews burned alive for the host desecration in Deggendorf, Bavaria in 1338, and in Sternberg, Mecklenburg in 1492, a woodcut from the Nuremberg Chronicle, Liber Chronicarum.

Unfortunately we White Christians are a gullible lot. For the most part we are too innocent or naive for us to grasp the treacherous nature of the devils among us or to anticipate their sheer depravity. Normal God-fearing folks are often baffled when they learn of such evils as gender theory, the push for the acceptance of “minor attracted persons”, increasingly liberal abortion laws, the vast amounts of tax dollars spent on “refugees” and other aspects of Western immigration policies which favour those hostile to Western culture at the expense of the European founding stock. It simply never crosses their mind that such things would be allowed to grow into real movements and public agendas.

If more Christians investigated the Scriptures thoroughly we would know that Scripture warns us of many of these evils. Homophilia (inextricably linked with pederastry through all of ancient history), miscegenation, general sexual promiscuity and multiculturalism are all things Scripture has clearly warned us against. If we heeded these warnings we would be in a much better place. Christians in recent times have been taught to focus on the positive messages of Scripture and to ignore the grim warnings and prophecies which ought to temper the naivety that a sheltered Christian upbringing might otherwise cause.

Scripture has made it amply clear in both the Old and New Testaments that homophilia is a grevious sin along with all other forms of sexual deviancy such as miscegenation and extra-marital affairs. These sins all fall under the Biblical term “fornication” which is frequently condemned in Scripture. Fittingly these sins are consistently associated with the alien Canaanite peoples surrounding the nation of Israel. The pagan cults of Canaan were inextricably linked to sexual deviancy in the form of fertility rites and temple prostitution of both women and men.

https://christogenea.org/essays/broken-cisterns

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

As in Biblical times, these sins can be traced to these same racially alien peoples who have never ceased to plague us. The Jewish forces of multiculturalism and sexual immorality can be traced directly to the ancient enemies of Israel through Cain, Canaan and Esau and today their agenda has changed surprisingly little. Even the sin of abortion come may come down to us from the fallen Angels according to the apocryphal book I Enoch (69.12) and parrallels may be drawn to the pagan Canaanite practice of child sacrifice described throughout Scripture.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

These devil’s endeavour to propagate these sinful ways to Israel has always hinged upon their ability to infiltrate our society through mingling and intermarrying with our people. The Canaanite plot to become mingled with Israel is described plainly first in Genesis 34.

“20And Emmor and Sychem his son came to the gate of their city, and spoke to the men of their city, saying, 21These men are peaceable, let them dwell with us upon the land, and let them trade in it, and behold the land is extensive before them; we will take their daughters to us for wives, and we will give them our daughters. 22Only on these terms will the men conform to us to dwell with us so as to be one people, if every male of us be circumcised, as they also are circumcised. 23And shall not their cattle and their herds, and their possessions, be ours? only in this let us conform to them, and they will dwell with us.”
-Genesis 34

This agenda has never ceased even until today. We see clear examples of it’s continuance among our current elites such as Donald Trump offering his daughter to the Edomite Jew Jared Kushner who now stands as his adviser. Under Trump “Zionism” has thrived and the Jewish state has recieved more support than ever before from the pockets of American citizens. In Canada our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau descends from the union of the Sephardic Jew Fidel Castro with the wife of Pierre Trudeau, Margaret, and this bastard eagerly hands over Canadian wealth to invaders. Surely our possessions have become their’s through such abominable unions.

Under Edomite Jewish influence our societies have even begun to persecute Christianity. In recent times here in Canada Christian preachers have been arrested simply for preaching the Biblical truth about the sin of homophilia, and it is only a matter of time before we become persecuted for upholding other basic tenants of Christian doctrine. Already Christians are being forced to accept mass Muslim and assorted heathen immigration as well as abortion and homophilia. Consider the case of Ellinor Grimmark, a Christian midwife in Sweden who had to find work outside of Sweden because she refused to participate in abortions.

Recently in German universities Christian groups were denied use of campus facilities, accreditation by student councils, and were prohibited from handing out flyers. The British Pharmaceutical Council published in 2017 new professional standards that state, in some circumstances, pharmacists were expected to dispense a drug against his or her conscience, meaning that a pharmacist who does not wish to issue an abortifacient drug cannot even refer the patient to another colleague.

Once the agenda of mass immigration has altered the demographics of Western nations enough they will undoubtedly begin to openly seek our destruction. In the coming years we should not be surprised if these devils begin to slaughter the faithful of God just as Doeg the Edomite in the days of Saul. The Edomite Jew’s ambition to destroy Israel is nothing new and we see in Scripture that the Edomites were complicit in the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (Psalm 137:7-9; 1 Esdras 4:45 in the Septuagint).

There is a simple solution to fighting these evil forces; an adherence to the laws of God. Scriptural Christian morality regards as sin all the things that Edomite Jewry thrives on. Christianity forbids usury, “pharmakeia” (drugs and related sorcery), fornication (miscegenation, homophilia, pederastry etc.), wrathfullness (the cause of brother wars) and it teaches us to care for our own house first, which means defending Christendom and the posterity of the children of God by whatever means necessary.

It teaches us not to cast pearls before swine or to give the children’s bread to dogs (missionaries to demonic races, foreign aid, refugee benefits etc.). It teaches us that we are to separate completely from all the evils of the world and fulfill our role as a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation and a peculiar people (1 Peter 2.9). This moral code, if properly adhered to, renders all the methods of Edomite Jewry powerless in Christendom.

If we forsake greed and the lust for wealth the Jew can not possibly hold us under the sway of his usury. If we deny lust the Jew cannot sell us pornography and turn our daughters into harlots. If we reject fornication the Jew cannot poison our bloodlines with the inferior races. If we turn aside from what is worldly and become a people apart the lesser races cannot swarm us and abuse us.

If we treat each other with kindness and love the Jew can not turn us on each other in wrath. If we work hard and share our bounty with each other the Jew can peddle no material goods to us. If we reject unbelievers and bastards our society will be strong and united. If we expel the anti-Christs from our midst there will be no Edomite Jews among us at all to propagate these sins in our society.

“14 If my people (Israel), which are called by my name (Christian/Anointed), shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
-2 Chronicles 7


The Antiquities of the Celtic Church

William Blake’s Illustration Joseph of Arimathea Among the Rocks of Albion in its second state after Blake’s 1773 original, engraved circa 1809

The world’s first above-ground church was founded in Britain by Jesus Christ’s uncle Joseph of Arimathea in Glastonbury in AD 37. Those saints in Joseph’s company founded other churches in Western Europe after departing from each other in Marseilles France.

These early Christians followed the same route to Western Europe that the ancient Israelites had sailed centuries before them bringing word of the risen Christ immediately to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

https://christogenea.org/essays/identifying-phoenicians

https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-trojan-roman-judah

https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-dorian-danaan-israelite-greeks

https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-origins-scythians-parthians-related-tribes

https://christogenea.org/essays/german-origins

‘The New Covenant with Israel’

Cardinal Caesar Baronius (AD 1538-1609) was a learned historian and librarian to the Vatican. In his Ecclesiastical Annals he identifies those that accompanied Joseph under section AD 35:

“the two Bethany sisters, Mary and Martha – their brother Lazarus – St. Eutropius – St. Salome – St. Cleon – St. Saturninus – St. Mary Magdalene – Marcella (the maid of the Bethany sisters) – St. Maxim (or Maximin) – St. Martial – St. Trophimus (Restitutus, the man who was born blind). Mary the mother of Jesus undoubtedly was not left behind.”

The Cardinal’s Annals quote the Acts of Magdalene for the record of the voyage to Marseilles and the preaching of the Gospel in the south of France by the Bethany family. The original manuscript was compiled by Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence (AD 766-856), and a copy is in the Magdalen College Library at Oxford, England. Chapter 37, after listing names of those accompanying Joseph, describes their voyaging:

“Leaving the shores of Asia and favoured by an east wind, they went round about, down the Tyrrhenian Sea, between Europe and Africa, leaving the city of Rome and all the land of Italy to the right. Then happily turning their course to the right, they came near to the city of Marseilles, in the Veinnoise province of the Gauls, where the river Rhone is received by the sea. There, having called upon God, the great King of all the world, they parted; each company going to the province where the Holy Spirit had directed them; presently preaching everywhere, ‘the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following’.”

Eusebius of Caesarea, (AD 260-340), one of the most comprehensive of ecclesiastical historians, wrote of Christ’s disciples in Demonstratio Evangelica, saying that “some have crossed the Ocean and reached the Isles of Britain.”

Tertullian (AD 155-222) wrote in his work Adversus Judaeos that the Celts of Britain, Spain and Gaul had already received and accepted the Gospel in his own time:

“…all the limits of the Spaniards, and the diverse nations of the Gauls, and the haunts of the Britons—inaccessible to the Romans, but subjugated to Christ.”

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/british-christians-rome-paul-ever-arrived

https://britishchristianhistory.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/christogenea-europe-the-druids-and-the-church-part-i/

https://britishchristianhistory.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/christogenea-europe-the-druids-and-the-church-part-ii/

https://britishchristianhistory.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/christogenea-europe-the-druids-and-the-church-part-iii/

Zoroastrian and Christian Parallels

In prerequisite writings I hope to have established that the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity were dispersed throughout the Iranic world which reached across the Steppe and into Europe. There they were known variously as Saka, Kimmerians and Scythians.

These went on to form the foremost racial element of the modern Celto-Germanic peoples. This is an expansive topic, and here we will not concern ourselves with the details of these historical migrations but rather will focus on a complementary thread of evidence which further validates the identification of the Israelites with the Scythians as well as well as the identification of the various Aryan tribes with the Noahites.

https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-origins-scythians-parthians-related-tribeshttps://christogenea.org/essays/german-origins

The Persians were descendants of the patriarchs Elam son of of Shem and Madai the son of Japheth. Other Japhetic and Shemitic tribes undoubtedly had some presence in Iran as well. As the inhabitants of ancient Iran were descendants of those Genesis 10 Adamic nations we should fully expect their culture to have had some grasp or memory of their Creator.

https://christogenea.org/essays/race-genesis-10

A relief depicting Ahura Mazda, Persopolis.

Indeed they did and we find ample parallels between ancient Israelism or Christianity and Zoroastrianism also known as Mazdayasna (“The Praise of Wisdom”). Before I proceed with that we will discuss briefly some of the history of Mazdayasna.

Zoroaster was probably born sometime between the 16th and 6th centuries BC somewhere in the Eastern Iranian plateau into the Persian Spitamids. Zoroaster is seen as a religious reformer or, to Hindus and neo-Vedicists, a heretic but Zoroaster himself claimed that he did not proclaim a new religion. Rather he came to restore the primordial Aryan religion as known in the distant past.

The Zoroastrian Scriptures are contained in the Avesta. Of greatest importance are the Yasna and particularly the Gathas which are said to have been spoken by Zoroaster himself. The extant texts of the Avesta, as they exist today, derive from a single master copy produced through collation and recension in the Sassanian Empire which stood from 224–651 AD. Thus the Avestan manuscripts are of comparable antiquity to those of the Greek New Testament.

Mazdayasna enters written history in the 5th century BCE. Herodotus’ Library of Histories (completed around 440 BC) includes a description of Iranian society that seems recognizably Zoroastrian. Herodotus describes sacrifice procedures among the Magi and Persians much like the Levitical and the Persians would not sacrifice without a Magus (Herodotus 1.132). The Magi were also said to belong to a specific tribe much like the Levites (Herodotus 1.101, 140).

Both Zoroastrianism and Israelism represented God with a winged solar disc called Faravahar. This symbol is found all throughout Zoroastrian art and is also found among many other ancient Near Eastern peoples such as the Egyptians, Assyrians and Israelites. We find the winged solar disc on the seal of King Hezekia of Judah and it is also mentioned in Malachi 4:

“1For, behold, a day comes burning as an oven, and it shall consume them; and all the aliens [allogenes, Strong’s G241 meaning “of another race”], and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that is coming shall set them on fire, saith the Lord Almighty, and there shall not be left of them root or branch. 2But to you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise, and healing shall be in his wings: and ye shall go forth, and bound as young calves let loose from bonds. 3And ye shall trample the wicked; for they shall be ashes underneath your feet in the day which I appoint, saith the Lord Almighty.”

The seal of King Hezekia of Judah, Jerusalem.

Judgement and cleansing through fire and the religious importance of fire in ritual observances are themes common to both Scripture and the Avestas. Both traditions proclaim a fiery apocalyptic judgement of the earth.

In the Avestas, Ahura Mazda is depicted as the Creator of the world (Yasna 31.7), omniscient (Yasna 31.13), omnipresent (Yasna 44.2), personal (Yasna 31.21), and just (Yasna 44.3), and in Scripture YHWH is also given such descriptions (Genesis 1.1-2 Chronicles 16.9, Psalm 139.1-2, Deuteronomy 32.4)

Zoroastrian texts describe two types of lesser divine entities called Ahuras and Daevas. Of course the Ahuras are much like Christian Angels and the Daevas are parrallel to demons in Christian tradition. One of the cheif reforms of Iranic religion brought on by Zoroaster was the condemnation of Daeva worship and their division from the Ahuras who were given Angelic status subordinate only to Mazda himself.

These Angels and demons in the Avestas are aligned with Spenta Mainyu (Holy Spirit) or Angra Mainyu (Evil Spirit). It is between these two forces that the battle between good and evil is waged, and men must choose their allegiances. As in Scripture the Avestas see the world divided into two camps: those who believe the Lie (Druj) and those who believe in Order (Asha).

In Yasna 30.3 Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu are called twins. Likewise forces of good and evil may be manifest as twins in Scripture where we see Jacob and Esau as twin brothers. Cain and Abel were also twins, though from different fathers through superfecundation.

‘The Origins of the Serpent Seed’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-origins-of-the-serpent-seed/

A silver drachm depicting YHWH struck by the Persian administration of Judea, Jerusalem.

Ultimate reward and retribution at the end of the age are both common themes within Zoroastrianism and Christianity. The Avestas teach the eventual victory of Mazda and the eternal defeat of Angra Mainyu and his minions. This is described in the Yasnas as “the last turning point in creation” (Yasna 43.5), when the whole world will be purged of evil and the kingdom of Ahura Mazda will be established. This is described in Yasna:

“So when there cometh the punishment of these evil ones, then, O Mazdah, at thy command shall Good Thought establish the Dominion in the Consummation, for those who deliver the Lie O Ahura, into the hands of the Right”
-Yasna 30.8

Of course this runs parrallel to the Christian expectation of the purging of the earth of Satan and his brood and the establishment of the eternal Kingdom of God.

While clearly not perfect parrallels I believe the Avestas may proclaim a profane parrallel to Christ. In the 10th Yasht of the Avesta, Mithra is said to have a divine status the equal of Ahura Mazda, when Ahura Mazda speaks to the prophet Zoroaster: “Verily, when I created Mithra, the lord of the wide pastures, I created him as worthy of sacrifice, as worthy of prayer as myself, Ahura Mazda.” Together with his mother Anahita, Mithra becomes the most important entity next to Ahura himself in Mazdayasna.

In the Danube region Mithraic monuments show Mithra shooting a rock from which water then gushes out. All throughout Scripture God is refered to as offering living water and being the fountain of living waters. Perhaps when the prophet Zoroaster came to purify Iranic spirituality and reestablish the worship of the highest God he returned this messianic figure to his proper place at the right hand of God.

The pagan Scythian religion seems to have had parallels with Zoroastrianism. Herodotus says that the Scythians worshiped a heptad of gods and in the Avestas the six Amesha Spentas (Good Spirits) are under (or emanate from) Mazda. It may be that Herodotus, viewing the world through purely pagan eyes, mistook the veneration of the Amesha Spentas for worship of a pantheon of wholly separate gods. This Zoroastrian heptad of the Amesha Spentas may run parrallel to the seven spirits of God (Isaiah 11.2-3, Revelation 1.4, 3.1 et al.)

Herodotus says that the deity he calls “Scythian Ares” was the only deity which the Scythians would make altars, images and temples for. Herodotus identifies this deity with Ares on account of his warlike nature. Of course the God of the Scythian Israelites had in past times been YHWH who is also a war God demanding exclusive rites and worship. Maybe Herodotus’ “Scythian Ares” is YHWH or perhaps the Scythians merely applied observances established in Israelism to worship of a pagan god.

The Behistun inscription.

While many Scythian descendants participated in polytheism many also practiced Mazdayasna. The Scythian Dahae were one of the first five nations amongst whom Zoroaster proclaimed his message. The Scythian Parthians liberated Iran from Macedonian rule and reconstructed the Avesta that had been destroyed by Alexander the Great. The Sassanids derived in part from Scythians and they are responsible for the more recent reconstruction of the Avestas.

In the Avesta’s Farvardin Yasht 13.144 the fravashis (souls) of the Dahae’s men and women are revered. The implication is that the Dahae, or some Dahae, were Zoroastrians worthy of perpetual veneration in each recitation of the Avestas. The Parthians are thought to be descended from the Dahae and so they too share in their Zoroastrian legacy.

While I would not consider the Avestas anywhere nearly as credible as Scripture, it is clear there was some relation between Zoroastrianism and ancient Israelism. Thus we see various offshoots of the Israelitic Scythian race such as the Dahae and Parthians practicing and championing Mazdayasna and related Mithraism.

Refuting “Black Hebrew Israelites”

I wish I’d never had cause to write this, but there is an ideology which I must address: “Black Hebrew Israelites”. As the name indicates, this Afrocentric ideology contends that the descendants of Israel today are found in certain Negroe tribes, most notably African Americans.

To me this notion seems absolutely laughable, but many do not have sufficient knowledge of Scripture or history to see how absurd it is, and so even some White folks have fallen prey to this falsehood.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” have no clear historical basis for their contentions. They point out that some of the Judeans fled into Egypt after the Romans destroyed the temple and other more vague connections between ancient Israel and North Africa. They then extend this alleged connection all the way across the continent to their Bantu ancestors without a scrap of credible evidence.

What the “Black Hebrew Israelites” present as evidence is of no academic value and mainly consists of modern commentators, typically Jews. None of the writings they draw on are of any antiquity and that is on those rare occasions they cite a real extant source. Typically the sources offered are dead ends and probably often fabrications.

Even if some of the Judaeans ventured into sub-Saharan Africa they could not possibly be the true house of Judah. These Judaeans dispersed from Judaea after 70 AD were mostly Edomites, Canaanites and Kenites or Judahites Benjamites and Levites who had mongrelized with the aforementioned cursed tribes. These are those anti-Christs who persecuted and despised Jesus and the Apostles such as Herod and Judas. Throughout the New Testament they are portrayed as a bastard race of vipers born of fornication and their father the devil, guilty of the blood of Abel, fitted for destruction and hated by God. Thus to claim descent from that brood is to condemn oneself as a bastard child of Satan.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

Genetic studies have actually proven that those sub-Saharan African tribes which do traditionally claim Jewish heritage do in fact share the Y-DNA (paternal) haplogroup most common among today’s Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite Jews (J). This is also not the haplogroup which predominates among the stock of those claiming to be “Black Hebrew Israelites” (E1b).

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/lemba-tribe-in-southern-africa-has-jewish-roots-genetic-tests-reveal

As we will see later on, the ancient Judaeans were certainly White and utterly alien to Negroes. Any pure-blooded Judaeans who may have settled the interior of Africa would have taken non-Adamic wives of the indigenous Negroe peoples becoming mongrelized and therefore unacceptable to God.

“2 A mongrel shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”
-Deuteronomy 23

“11Juda hath transgressed, and abomination hath been committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem: for Juda hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 

12The Lord will cut off the man that hath done this, both the master, and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering to the Lord of hosts.”
-Malachi 2

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

If there are any Israelite paternal lineages to be found in the domain of the Negroes they would undoubtedly be found in Chad and Cameroon where the Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroup R1b is found at an astoundingly high frequency. Of course any Negroes bearing this Eurasian paternal lineage could only be mongrelized descendants of White male colonists from Eurasia.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5142112/

Some of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” contend that the Northern house of Israel which was deported by the Assyrians ended up in Africa. This is absolutely contrary to all available information in Scripture and other ancient sources concerning the whereabouts of the house of Israel.

When the northern house of Israel went into the Assyrian captivity they were placed among the Aryan Medes (the Japhetic Madai) as a buffer population on the fringes of the Assyrian empire.

“6In the ninth year of Osee the king of the Assyrians took Samaria, and carried Israel away to the Assyrians, and settled them in Alae, and in Abor, near the rivers of Gozan, and in the mountains of the Medes.”
-2 Kings 17

The Northward migration of the house of Israel out of Mesopotamia is recorded in 2 Esdras. The region of Arsareth undoubtedly refers to the mountainous regions (ar or har (H2022) in Hebrew meaning “mountain” or “hill country”) around the Sireth river on the North-West side of the Black Sea.

“40 Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. 41 But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, 42 That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. 43 And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river. 44 For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. 45 For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.”
-2 Esdras 13

The historian Flavius Josephus describes the location of these deported tribes in his own time from a Judaean perspective.

“the ten tribes are beyond the Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude and not to be estimated in numbers.”
-Josephus, Antiquities, 11:133

In the Dead Sea Scrolls in the War Scroll (4Q492) Togar (Togarmah) and Masha (Meshech) are “beyond the Euphrates” from a Judaean perspective. Togarmah and Meshech refer to lands in modern Russia, Georgia and Armenia that the Scythians and Kimmerians were known to have settled. Abraham’s own ancestors were also said to have originated beyond the Euphrates (Joshua 24.2).

In the preface to Josephus’ Wars the phrase describes those “with the Adiabeni”. Adiabene consisted of the plains beyond the Tigris bordering Babylonia to the South, Armenia to the North and Media in the East. So we see that the phrase “beyond the Euphrates” in Israelite literature refers consistently to the Northernmost regions of Western Asia.

Many “Black Hebrew Israelites” point to Zepheniah 3.10 as evidence that the Israelites came to inhabit Africa to the South of certain Ethiopian rivers. Of course the “rivers of Kush”/”Ethiopia” of Zephaniah 3.10 must be identified in light of other Scriptural evidence concerning the whereabouts of dispersed Israel.

As we have just seen in 2 Kings, Josephus’ Antiquities and 2 Esdras the Israelites migrated North of Canaan into Northern Mesopotamia and Iran and not South into Africa. Several other Scriptures attest to Israel’s new location to the North and West of Canaan in Europe and Asia Minor, a point we will revisit later on.

There are two places named Kush/Ethiopia in history and Scripture. One is located in modern Ethiopia in the Horn of Africa. Another is located somewhere in Asia which is connected with the Hindu-Kush region (Herodotus, Histories 3.94, 7.70, Josephus Antiquities 1.6.2). This passage must be interpreted in light of the rest of Scripture and history, and so it must be understood that this refers to either the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity dispersed beyond the rivers of the Ethiopia of the East or to the Boer Israelites who in more recent times have settled South Africa. Perhaps this passage has a dual fulfillment found in both migrations.

https://christogenea.org/essays/classical-records-origins-scythians-parthians-related-tribes

https://christogenea.org/essays/german-origins

Ancient Judaean mosaics have been unearthed in Palestine, particularly in the region of Galilee, the land of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ. These mosaics consistently display the Europoid features of the Judaeans. The subjects display hyperdepigmentation, straight, upright noses as well as modest lips and no prognathism of the jaws. Clearly these mosaics do not depict Negroes. Some scoffers claim these mosaics are Greek rather than Judaean, but the Syriac text which accompanies many of these depictions and their location in synagogues disprove that claim as does the fact that early Byzantine Galilee maintained a Judaean majority well into the era in question.

‘Physical Descriptions and Depictions of the Adamites, Shemites, Hebrews, Israelites and Judahites’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/05/26/physical-descriptions-of-the-adamites-shemites-hebrews-israelites-and-judahites/

The Israelites are physically described several times in Scripture and what these passages describe is utterly alien to the Negroe (hereafter Congoid; the appropriate scientific racial classification).

“4 Thy neck is as an ivory tower; thine eyes are as pools in Esebon, by the gates of the daughter of many: thy nose is as the tower of Libanus, looking toward Damascus.”
-Song of Solomon 7.4

Sepphoris, Galilee.

Obviously the Congoid does not have a neck like ivory, eyes like pools of water or a nose like a tower. Rather it is dark skinned, dark eyed and flat nosed.

“42 And Goliath saw David, and despised him; for he was a lad, and ruddy (admoni, H132, purrazo 4449), with a fair countenance.”
-1 Samuel 17.42

Strong’s H4449, purrazo:

“be red.
From purrhos; to redden (intransitively) — be red.”

Strong’s H132, admoni:

“red, ruddy
Or (fully) admowniy {ad-mo-nee’}; from ‘adam; reddish (of the hair or the complexion) — red, ruddy.”

Hamat Tiberias, Palestine.

Obviously neither of these words describe the dark skinned and dark haired Congoid who has neither a bright or reddish color to either their skin or hair. Only Caucasoids are typically hyper-depigmented in hair and skin.

“10 My kinsman is white (tsach, H6703, leukos G3022) and ruddy (adom, H122, purrhos G4450), chosen out from myriads.”
-Song of Solomon 5.10

Strong’s G4450, purros:

“fiery red
From pur; fire-like, i.e. (specially), flame- colored — red.”

Strong’s H122, adom:

“red, ruddy
From ‘adam; rosy — red, ruddy.”

Strong’s G3022, leukos:

“white.
From luke (“light”); white — white.”

Strong’s H6703, tsach:

“clear, dry, plainly, white
From tsachach; dazzling, i.e. Sunny, bright, (figuratively) evident — clear, dry, plainly, white.”

The coloration of the Congoid, be it of the skin, hair or eyes, is not white, red, fire-like, rosy, sunny, bright, clear or white. All of the afforementioned descriptors can only describe hyper-depigmentation

“7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter (tsachach, H6705, lampo G2989) than milk, they were purified as with fire, their polishing was superior to sapphire stone.”
-Lamentations 4.7

Where the Septuagint reads “they were purified as with fire” the King James reads “they were more ruddy (adom H119) in body than rubies”.

Strong’s G2989, lampos:

“give light, shine.
A primary verb; to beam, i.e. Radiate brilliancy (literally or figuratively) — give light, shine.”

Strong’s H6703, tsachach:

“be whiter
A primitive root; to glare, i.e. Be dazzling white — be whiter.”

Strong’s H119, adom:

“be dyed, made red ruddy
To show blood (in the face), i.e. Flush or turn rosy — be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)”

Hamat Tiberias, Palestine.

The dark face of the Congoid does not shine, give light, radiate or beam as it absorbs light rather than reflecting or emitting it. Neither is it dazzling or bright or comparable to milk and snow. Of course the Congoid cannot show blood in the face, flush or turn rosy. The melanin in their skin prevents any observance of blood flow beneath. Only Caucasoids naturally exhibit this transparency of skin.

“22 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the house of Jacob, whom he set apart from Abraham, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall he now wax pale (chavar, H2357).”
-Isaiah 29.22

Strong’s H2357:

“wax pale
A primitive root; to blanch (as with shame) — wax pale.”

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

The Greek text of this verse reads “neither shall he now change countenance” which relays the same message but does not use the expression “wax pale”. Of course the Congoid cannot change its countenance or wax pale as their melanin prevents the observance of blood flow. If Jacob was physically unable to wax pale then the words of the prophet would be redundant, which the words of God never are. Of course Jacob, being Caucasoid, could wax pale.

“12 And he sent and fetched him: and he was ruddy (admoni, H132, purrazo, G4449), with beauty of eyes, and very goodly to behold. And the Lord said to Samuel, Arise, and anoint David, for he is good.”
-1 Samuel 16.12

I already gave the definitions for purazzo and admoni and of course these descriptors cannot possibly describe the heavily pigmented Congoid. Only Caucasoids meet the description of ruddy.

“7 Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be purified: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter (laban, H3835, leukaino, G3021) than snow.”
-Psalm 51.7

Strong’s G3021, leukainos:

“make white, whiten.
From leukos; to whiten — make white, whiten.”

Strong’s H3835, laban:

“make brick, be made, make whiter
A primitive root; to be (or become) white; also (as denominative from lbenah) to make bricks — make brick, be (made, make) white(-r).”

King David, Gaza, Palestine.

Notice that the natural state of the speaker when purified and cleansed is white. Of course Congoids do not turn white when washed, and so this can certainly not describe a Congoid. Rather this describes a Caucasoid.

The name Adam is derived from Strong’s H119:

“be dyed, made red ruddy
To show blood (in the face), i.e. Flush or turn rosy — be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)”

Many claim Adam derives from adamah (soil), but this defies all convention whereby the smaller component (adam) is the root of the larger derivative (adamah). Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance specifically tells us in the entry for Adam (H120) that it derives from H119.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to point out that Esau was ruddy and they connect his ruddiness to that of Caucasoids.

“25And the first came out red, hairy all over like a skin; and she called his name Esau.”
-Genesis 25.25

What they miss however is that Esau was Jacob’s twin brother, a pedigreed Hebrew. In pointing out that Esau was a ruddy White man they only prove that Hebrews are indeed ruddy White men. The exact words rendered “red” at Genesis 25.25 are admoni and purrazo (H132 and G4449) and these are the same words which are elsewhere used in describing Israelites. (1 Samuel 16.12, 17.42). This is to say nothing of the obvious absurdity of the notion that Caucasoids and Congoids, two of the most genetically and physically dissimilar races, share a common direct ancestor less than 4 millennia ago.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” will point to the few verses where people describe themselves as dark. (Lamentations 4.8, Song of Solomon 1.5-6, Job 30.30 et al.) but completely disregard the fact that these descriptions clearly employ hyperbole and are always given in lamentation and in connection with exposure to the sun or starvation. It is also portrayed as negative, unusual and shameful. Now if the Israelites were naturally black skinned Congoids they would not portray white, bright and ruddy skin positively and dark, drab and brownish skin negatively.

Beit She’an, Palestine.

Let us examine a few of these “Black Hebrew Israelite’s” interpretations concerning such verses describing swarthiness.

“5I am swarthy, but beautiful, ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

6Look not upon me, because I am swarthy, because the sun has looked unfavourably upon me: my mother’s sons strove with me; they made me keeper in the vineyards; I have not kept my own vineyard.”
-Song of Solomon 1

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” will only quote verse 5 and will ignore verse 6 which explains the cause of the speakers swarthiness; exposure to the sun. Verse 6 also indicates that his swarthiness is a cause for shame. It ought to be noted that the woman speaking here is most likely the Queen of Sheba and not an Israelite.

“29I am become a brother of monsters, and a companion of ostriches.

30And my skin has been greatly darkened, and my bones are burned with heat.

31My harp also has been turned into mourning, and my song into my weeping.”
-Job 30

Note that Job was not initially swarthy, but has become so only as his “bones are burned with heat”. His swarthy state is here associated with his suffering and mourning.

This next verse only reads in a way the “Black Hebrew Israelites” think is favourable in the King James Version which is known to be rife with mistranslation.

“2 Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.”
-Jeremiah 14

Here in the KJV qadar (H6937) is rendered as “they are black” rather than “they have mourned” (Young’s Literal Translation), “her people lament” (English Standard Version) or “they sit in black” (American Standard Version). The Greek Septuagint (by far older than the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Jews) shows that the people of Judah are not even the subject of the darkening, but rather that it is poetic language describing the gates of Judaea.

“2Judea has mourned, and her gates are emptied, and are darkened upon the earth; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.”

Judaean mosaic, Huqoq, Galilee.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim adom (H122) refers to a reddish brown hue and for this purpose they point to the red heifer of Numbers 19.2. However this position is ignorant of the use of adom. Adom can be used to describe any reddish hue just as the English word red. But what is important is its primary meaning evidenced by its etymology.

Adom clearly refers primarily to the ruddiness of blood (dam, H1818). Strong’s informs us that H122 comes from H119 which is defined as “to show blood (in the face), i.e. Flush or turn rosy”. Thus it is clear the primary meaning of H122 refers to the redness of blood and the ruddiness it causes in the transparent skin of Caucasoids.

Even if one errantly assumes adom refers to the brownish red of a red heifer when used to describe people this could not be taken to mean the people described were Congoid as no pure Congoid has skin that is remotely ruddy. Of course the Israelites had to have been a pure race according to the law and so we cannot imagine they were Congoids mixed with other races giving them a reddish hue. Rather they had to have been of a race naturally ruddy in its pure state which, in the Near East, could only be the Caucasoid race.

Judaean mosaic, Huqoq, Galilee. (Judaeans L, Mycenaeans R)

One of the passages the “Christian” branch of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to quote often is Revelation 1.14-15 which poetically describes Christ.

14 The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters.”
-Revelation 1

This passage may also be compared to the description of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.9. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” take this passages to mean that Jesus has hair the texture of wool as they do. Of course this is not what the text actually says which is literally “white as if wool” (leukai hos erion). The comparison to wool is one of colour and not one of texture.

They also claim that brazen skin indicates a complexion similar to so-called “light skin blacks” as we see among African Americans. Of course pure brass burning in a furnace is radiant and not dark at all. The natural pigmentation of the pure Congoid race is an almost perfect black. One might see a bright brazen tone in a sun tanned European, but never in a full-blooded Bantu.

Refined brass bars.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” tend to avoid the following verse and its implications. In verse 16 we see Christ’s countenance described as shining like the sun. Of course this cannot possibly describe the dark skin of a Congoid which reflects very little light.

16 In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength.”
-Revelation 1

Refined brass bars.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that Simon “that was called Niger” (Acts 13.1) was so called on account of being a Negroe. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” fail to see that if Niger were a reference to his skin colour that the only logical inference would be that black skin was a peculiar trait among the Judaeans. If the Judaeans in general were black it would’ve been pointless to apply the name Niger as if black skin was abnormal.

But of course Simon was not called Niger on account of his skin colour. It is hardly unique for White people to be called black as we see in the use of the terms Black Dutch, Black Irish or the name Hugh the Black, a Frankish Duke of Burgundy in the 10th century. My own wife’s English maiden name is Black, and I assure you, she is no Negroe. As we have seen earlier in this presentation, the Judaeans were certainly White, and Simon was no exception. It is far more likely that he was so-named for having raven hair.

African Americans (by far the dominant demographic among “Black Hebrew Israelites”) hold many strange notions about race. They are often quite physically dissimilar to their Bantu relatives overseas, and for this reason they have imagined that they are a different kind of black person than full-blooded Bantus in Africa.

The “Black Hebrew Israelite” racial delusion.

The truth is that African Americans are a racially mixed people who descend predominantly from Bantus, but who have mingled extensively with neighbouring populations. Thus they are somewhat dissimilar to full-blooded Bantus often having some Caucasoid features and producing “light skin blacks”. In fact the average African American has 24% European DNA.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

This alone precludes the possibility of African Americans being children of Israel as Scripture clearly forbids mongrels from having a part in the nation of Israel.

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” have imagined that the Semites are their forebears while Ham fathered the full-blooded Bantus of Africa who have “pure” sub-Saharan African DNA. This leaves Japheth as the sole father of the other four main races; Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australoids and Capoids. Of course this is all childish nonsense and it is clear from Scripture that the race of Adam is the unadulterated Caucasoid race.

‘Adam: The Patriarch of One Race’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/adam-the-patriarch-of-one-race/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

‘Physical Descriptions and Depictions of the Adamites, Shemites, Hebrews, Israelites and Judahites’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/05/26/physical-descriptions-of-the-adamites-shemites-hebrews-israelites-and-judahites/

Genetic evidence likewise refutes their absurd theories proving that before the Islamic conquest of the Levant the genetic makeup of the region most closely resembled modern Europeans and not Middle Easterners or North Africans, much less sub-Saharan Africans.

“Levant populations today fall into two main groups: one sharing more genetic characteristics with modern-day Europeans and Central Asians, and the other with closer genetic affinities to other Middle Easterners and Africans.”

“We reconstructed the genetic structure of the Levantines and found that a pre-Islamic expansion Levant was more genetically similar to Europeans than to Middle Easterners”

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003316

Syrian boys.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that White folks would perish in the climates of the lands where Israel dwelt, but this is ridiculous and only shows the ignorance of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” regarding the racial state of Biblical lands past and present.

Egyptian woman.

The Israelites and other Adamites recognized that excessive exposure to the sun would harm them (Psalm 121.6, Isaiah 49.10, Song of Solomon 1.6, Jonah 4.8 et al.) and sought shelter from it in tents, buildings and suitable clothing. It must of course be noted that these regions were once much more temperate and lush.

Samaritan woman.

Mesopotamia and the Levant have forest lands to this day and much much more in antiquity. Even today Galilee (the nativity of Christ) has a considerable amount of woodland and grassland. Ancient Mesopotamian texts (Abraham was called from Mesopotamia) like the Epic of Gilgamesh speak of evergreen forests as if they were at hand or very nearby.

Egyptian woman.

The Israelite colonists of the Exodus travelled through the desert in search of wooded lands and fertile fields which were to be found in ancient Canaan. They obviously considered the desert an inhospitable and alien environment.

Lebanese woman.

Even today hyperdepigmented locals persist in North Africa, the Levant, Syria and neighbouring regions, and these have not all died out due to exposure. With a little care and preparation a White man can easily survive in these lands, and of course we can adjust to the sun over time by tanning.

‘Syro-Levantine Europoids: the Memory of Shem’s Blood in Western Asia’

https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=498025400801293&id=296739117596590

https://www.facebook.com/Egyptian-Natural-Beauty-546824522147071/

Syrian man.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that biblical leprosy is actually what we call vitiligo today and that White people are in fact biblical lepers. They base this on descriptions of leprosy in Scripture as causing extreme pallour. The Hebrew and Greek words (Strong’s G3014 and H6883) are regarded by many lexicographers as refering to leprosy (Hansen’s disease), but even if we imagine it refers to vitiligo the “Black Hebrew Israelite’s” argument falls down as White people can also experience vitiligo.

Vitiligo causes patches of the skin to lose melanin content, and Europoids in fact do have melanin, though of a different chemical composition to that of Congoids. Europoids can experience vitiligo and develop patches of skin that are utterly whitened in contrast with their comparatively tanned skin.

Caucasian people are typically more ruddy than white as our transparent skin reveals the blood flow beneath. As we have seen earlier in this presentation this ability to show ruddiness is the very meaning of the word adom (H119) which is used in Scripture along with related words to describe Israelites. When afflicted with sickness we often blanch or wax pale draining the ruddiness from our face and making us “white as snow” as those afflicted by leprosy in Scripture (2 Kings 5.27, Numbers 12.10, Exodus 4.6).

It is clear from Scripture that leprosy was considered contagious which is not an attribute of vitiligo. Leprosy likely rather refers to infections or diseases manifest on the skin, possibly including, but not limited to, vitiligo. The most absurd part of this belief is the notion that a contagious disease spawned a race.

The hyperdepigmented state of Europoids is in no way contagious and has definitive genetic causes. If it was contagious we would see the results today wherever White people dwell among dark races. Skin colour is but one characteristic that defines the Europoid race but more important is our distinctive Caucasoid skeletal structure which certainly cannot be the product of some contagion.

There are a number of prophecies concerning Israel which Bantus and other Negroes fail to fulfil, but which are all fulfilled in the nations of Christian Europe.

The real Israelites have been dispersed to the North and the West, Tarshish (Tartessus, Iberia), Lud (Lydia, Anatolia), Persia, Meshech (Moscow, Russia), Tubal (Tobolsk, Russia), Greece, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bythinia: Isaiah 49.1 & 12, 66.19, Jeremiah 3.18, 31.8, 1 Peter 1.1.

None of these lands has ever been settled by Negroes, but all are lands where great nations of Europe such as Trojans, Danaans, Dorians, Scythians and Kimmerians arrived in history and later dwelt.

The Israelites are comprised of mighty nations, having command of the waters, coasts and vast lands and possessing the gates of their enemies: Genesis 22.17, 24.60, 49.25, Numbers 24.7, Deuteronomy 33.13 & 19, Psalm 89.25.

Negroes have true dominion over nothing, their lands having all been colonized by European nations who could at any time reclaim rule over them. They have no power over any of their historical enemies.

The true Israelites are a company or commonwealth of nations: Genesis 35.11, 48.19, Ephesians 2.12.

The Negroes have never had any concept of national unity much less a commonwealth or confederacy of any sort. Rather they consist of a mass of perpetually conflicting tribes typically led by warlords.

The Israelites are the custodians of God’s word: Psalm 147.19-20; Isaiah 59.21.

The Negroes of course have never been keepers of Scripture, a legacy only attributable to Christian Europe. No Negroe tribe has ever even established any form of written language without foreign influence, a point we will revisit later.

True Israel would colonize and spread abroad: Genesis 28.14, Deuteronomy 33.17, Psalm 2.8, Isaiah 26.15, 27.6, 54.2-3, Zechariah 10.8-9.

Of course no Negroe tribe or nation has ever undertaken colonialism or spread beyond their continent of their own volition.

There are cultural traits exhibited by the Israelites in Scripture which are utterly alien to Niger-Congo cultures, and which one might say are quite beyond the reach of such a people. The Israelites were a highly literate people who pioneered a new writing system (“Phoenician”/paleo-Hebrew) and spread it around the Mediterranean Basin.

https://christogenea.org/essays/identifying-phoenicians

‘The Linguistic Developments of the Shemites, Hebrews and Israelites’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-linguistic-developments-of-the-shemites-hebrews-and-israelites/

In contrast Niger-Congo tribes (the ethno-linguistic group to which Bantus belong) never established a written language of their own. Colonists, slaves and missionaries have intruduced Latin and Arabic scripts to them but they were never taken up widely once these people left them to their own devices.

Some “Black Hebrew Israelites” point to the name of the Afro-Asiatic language group and imagine that this validates their beliefs, but in truth the Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken almost exclusively by the autocthonous Caucasoid peoples of North Africa and the Horn of Africa while the Negroes speak Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan tongues. The Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages are distinct from both Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European languages which were the two main linguistic groups to which belong the tongues of the Genesis 10 Adamic nations. Not one nation mentioned in Scripture spoke a Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan language and all spoke Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, Hurro-Urartian, Kartvelian, or isolate languages. The Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages have no affinity with the languages of Scripture such as Hebrew, Syriac or Greek.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Niger-Congo-languages

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Afro-Asiatic-languages

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nilo-Saharan-languages

The Niger-Congo peoples have never built a two-story building, seaworthy watercraft or even a wheel. They certainly could not produce wagons, ships, walled cities, bronze and iron weapons and tools or other impliments used and manufactured by the Israelites in Scripture. They also have not domesticated any animals for themselves as did the Israelites who used camels, oxen, donkeys and other animals for labour and transport. Had the Israelites been Congoids they would have been reliant on mud huts, primitive weaponry and the strength of their backs for shelter, protection, labour and transport.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/scientific-view-negro-age-political-correctness-part-1

The Israelites were a predominantly agrarian people reliant on herds, flocks and crops for their livelihood. As we see today in sub-Saharan Africa, Congoids are not capable farmers or herdsmen. Rather they sit atop the lush soil of Africa but starve to death without the aid of other nations. When Congoids have expelled on occasion White colonists who introduced farming to them they have failed to maintain the farms left behind. Then in the following years we find them complaining of starvation and scarcity of food as seen in Zimbabwe, Rhodesia and all of South Africa.

Even if we imagine that Congoids could function as herdsmen they could not have fully enjoyed the fruits of such labours. It is evident throughout Scripture that raw milk was a staple of the diets of Scriptural patriarchs (Genesis 18.8, 49.12, Deuteronomy 32.13-14, Song of Solomon 5.1, Isaiah 7.22, et al.). Lactose tolerance emerged about 7,500 years ago and today the ability to digest lactose is highly concentrated in Europeans.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090827202513.htm

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” theories are reliant on the erroneous assumption that the Afro-Asiatic Caucasoid peoples of North Africa and the Horn of Africa were actually Congoid peoples. Many look at the average Ethiopian, or select tribes of Ethiopia and see that they have dark brown or black skin and often have nappy hair. Some tribes in Ethiopia are in fact negroes (hereafter Congoids, the appropriate racial classification) but these are not autocthonous nor are they the majority. These Congoid populations in the Horn of Africa descend from more recent Nilotic and Bantu migrations alien to ancient Ethiopia. 

The fact is, that the racial archetype of Ethiopia (Aethiopid) a subtype of the Caucasoid race and not the Congoid race! Aethiopids are a Mediterranid stabilized with a Congoid element with other Caucasoid influences in certain Aethiopic subtypes.

Aethiopid male example.

Aethiopids have large braincases and high vaulted skulls whereas Congoids have smaller braincases and low vaulted skulls. Aethiopids have no protrusion of the jaws as do Congoids and they also lack the large teeth of the Congoid race. The Aethiopid race lacks the rectangular shape of the palate and eye orbit typical of Congoids and the large and round nasal cavity of the Congoid is also absent in the Aethiopid.

Aethiopids typically have lighter skin and sometimes wavy or moderately curly hair. Aethiopids do not exhibit the wide and flat nose of the Congoid race and rather have long and narrow noses. They have limbs of typical Caucasoid proportions which lack the extra length of the Congoid’s limbs. They are by no means Congoid either in their morphology or craniometry. In layman’s terms they appear as if the skin of a Negroe was draped over the flesh and bone of a Caucasian. The American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon explains the racial state of the Horn of Africa today very well where he states:

“On the basis of these correlations, it is evident that the partly negroid appearance of Ethiopians and of Somalis is due to a mixture between whites and negroes, and that the Ethiopian cannot be considered the representative of an undifferentiated stage in the development of both whites and blacks, as some anthropologists would have us believe. On the whole, the white strain is much more numerous and much more important metrically, while in pigmentation and in hair form the negroid influence has made itself clearly seen.”
-Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe 9.8

https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI8.htm

Aethiopid female example.

The Rwandan genocide was motivated by the racial differences between the Aethiopic Tutsis and the predominantly Congoid Hutus. The Tutsis are sometimes called “the Jews of Africa” and may descend partially from Edomite Jews dispersed to Africa following the Judaean wars. Clearly there is no kinship felt between Aethiopids and Congoids in Africa. Not only do Aethiopic tribes regard themselves as distinct from Nilotes and Bantus but the nearby Arabs likewise distinguish the Aethiopic tribes from their Negroe neighbours.

The duel of Achilles (L) and Memnon the Ethiopian (R), Grave amphora, Southern Italy, 4th century BC.

I would now like to now quote Diodorus Siculus from his Library of Histories regarding the Ethiopians. After describing the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus Siculus goes on to describe in contrast the primitive hominids dwelling in Ethiopia and nearby regions.

“1 But there are also a great many other tribes of the Ethiopians, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of Arabia, and still others residing in the interior of Libya. 2 The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in colour and have flat noses and woolly hair. As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast, not so much, however, in their temper as in their ways of living; for they are squalid all over their bodies, they keep their nails very long like the wild beasts, and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another; 3 and speaking as they do with a shrill voice and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life as these are found among the rest of mankind, they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs.”
-Library of History, 3.8.1

Photograph of a couple from upper Congo, Central Africa bearing facial scarification, sharpened upper teeth and filed bottom teeth.

When describing the civilized Ethiopians Diodorus makes no mention of their physical characteristics, but when he mentions the savages the first things he notes are their black skin, flat noses and wooly hair. I think that if Diodorus had observed these physical traits among the civilized Ethiopians, he would not have made specific note of them among the savage Ethiopians. It is very doubtful there were any purely Adamic Ethiopians in Diodorus’ time, but certainly there was a remnant of their civilization and blood.

In section 1.23 in the second book of Pomponious Mela’s Chorographia he makes mention of Leucaethiopians or White Ethiopians inhabiting a certain region along the Libyan Sea.

“On those shores washed by the Libyan Sea, however, are found the Libyan Aegyptians, the White Aethiopians, and, a populous and numerous nation, the Gaetuli. Then a region, uninhabitable in its entire length, covers a broad and vacant expanse.”

(L to R) Andromeda (an Ethiopian), Perseus and Cepheus (Andromeda’s father, King of Ethiopia), Vase of the Sisyphus Group, 5th century BC.

In section 5.8 of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History we read again of White Ethiopians.

“If we pass through the interior of Africa in a southerly direction, beyond the Gaetuli, after having traversed the intervening deserts, we shall find, first of all the Liby-Egyptians, and then the country where the Leucaethiopians dwell.”

These sources do not agree on a single precise location for these White Ethiopians but both attest to their existence and place them near the Libyan-Egyptians and the Berber tribe of the Gaetuli. It is probable that many fled Ethiopia in the wake of the incursions of Nilotic and Bantu tribes, but the most likely cause of this dispersion is the deportation of of the Ethiopians and Egyptians by Esarhaddon prophecied in Isaiah 20 and attested to in Assyrian inscriptions. Thus we see them neighbouring these Libyan-Egyptians, also seemingly uprooted from their original homelands. Undoubtedly these deportations contributed greatly to the decline of genuine Kushite blood in Ethiopia.

Aethiopic male example.

In the 4th-century AD a remnant of the Cushites continued to be perceived as distinct from the black tribes of the region. A 4th century victory stela commemorating the Axumite king Ezana contains inscriptions describing separate ethnic groups dwelling in ancient Nubia: Kushites and Noba/Nubians. The Nubians themselves seem to be divided into “red” and “black” groups while both are distinguished from the Cushites. Reading from RIE 189, Bernard et al. (1991:263):

“7.By the power of the Lord of All I made war on the Noba once 8.the confederations of the Noba had made war, having acted haughtily. “They will not cross the Takkazē!” said the confeder9.ations of the Noba. At that time they had wrought havoc upon the peoples of the Mangurto and the Khasa and the Barya, and the blacks 10.made war on the reds. … 28.And I reached the Kushites and killed them and took [others] prisoner at the 29.confluence of the Nile and the Takkazē rivers … And from there I sent the division of Ḥalēn, the division of Lūkēn, and 35.the division of Sabarāt, Falḥa, and Ṣerā’ down the Nile against the four towns of 36.straw of the Noba: [the town of] Negwase; [and] the towns of brick of the Kushites which the Noba had captured, Tabito [and] 37.Fertoti. And they reached the territory of the Red Noba, and my tr38.oops returned safe and sound, having taken prisoners and killed and seized booty by the power of the Lord of Hea39.ven.”

The 16th century Berber explorer Leo Africanus described the existence of various “white” or “olive” groups and individuals inhabiting the Horn of Africa, comprising much of the population of the Adal Sultanate and Mogadishu Sultanate (The History and Description of Africa, Hakluyt Society, pgs. 52-53). He further asserts that pockets of other “white” or “olive” skinned residents could also be found on two small islands north of Socotra and in parts of the Zanguebar coast (ibid. pg. 88).

Today the autocthonous Afro-Asiatic speakers of the Horn of Africa retain a large portion of identifiable Eurasian genetic markers. The percentage of identifiable Eurasian markers peaks in Semitic and Cushitic speaking populations but also extends into adjacent populations. This is to say nothing of the regionally African genetic markers which cannot be clearly identified with any specific populations and which may be of Caucasoid origin.

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632/tab-figures-data

In biblical times Ethiopia is one of the first Adamic nations to be lost to miscegenation.

“For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.”
-Isaiah 43.3

Aethiopid female example.

It seems God placed these Hamites between Israel and the non-Adamic sub-Saharan Congoid tribes who had crossed the desert and begun to move into Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia and Egypt exist as nations (in the deracinated modern sense), but certainly the posterity of the original Hamitic inhabitants has been lost.

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

The duel of Achilles (L) and Memnon the Ethiopian (R), Vase of the Tyszkiewicz Painter, 6th century BC.

Some point to Jeremiah 13.23 as evidence that the Ethiopians originated as a black skinned race.

“23If the Ethiopian shall change his skin, or the leopardess her spots, then shall ye be able to do good, having learnt evil.”
-Jeremiah 13

However Jeremiah wrote later than Isaiah who spoke in hindsight of God forfeiting Ethiopia and other Hamitic nations in Africa. Thus we should fully expect many of the Ethiopians of the time of Jeremiah to have been darkened and dissimilar to their original racial state. Nonetheless we need not assume that the darkness of the Ethiopians compared to the Israelites was the product of miscegenation as the Hamites were generally of Mediterranean stock. This can be clearly seen in the art of the Egyptians and the “Minoans” As I hope to have demonstrated elsewhere, the “Minoans”/Cretans are one and the same as the Biblical Philistines. To the pale Israelites such stock would surely have seemed dark in comparison to themselves and other Semites.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/12/26/the-noahite-nations-the-hamites/

‘Physical Descriptions and Depictions of the Adamites, Shemites, Hebrews, Israelites and Judahites’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/01/physical-descriptions-of-the-adamites-shemites-hebrews-israelites-and-judahites-2/

Aethiopid male example.

Some have claimed the Hebrew word Kuwsh means “black”, but no such definition is offered by any reputable lexicographers. It is said to be of foreign (i.e. non-Hebrew) derivation and the etymology is unknown. From Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance:

“Kûwsh, koosh; probably of foreign origin; Cush (or Ethiopia), the name of a son of Ham, and of his territory; also of an Israelite:—Chush, Cush, Ethiopia.”

Gesenius’ entry for Kuwsh.

I believe that in light of this evidence the Scriptural narrative and Christian Identity position concerning the Ethiopia of Africa is wholly validated. In Ethiopia we see a land founded by White Hamites grown racially corrupt. After the Nilotic and Bantu expansions out of Central and Western Africa in the 2nd millennium BC and the deportations of the Ethiopians by Esarhadon in the 7th century BC the descendants of Cush in Africa dwindled and darkened.

‘Concerning the Ancient Aethiops’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/concerning-the-ancient-aethiops/

Den.

While it is probable that the early Pharaonic civilization of Egypt arrived from the South (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History, 3.3.1), as we have seen, the autocthonous Hamitic peoples of Eastern Africa originated as a wholly Caucasoid people.

Narmer.

Undoubtedly the first Pharaohs of Mizraim were of Caucasoid stock which is clearly shown in contemporary depictions. While the art of early dynastic Egypt is crude, we can clearly see that the subjects did not exhibit the prognathism of the jaws which characterizes the Congoid race.

Sneferu.

Of course Negroes are even more foreign to Egypt than Ethiopia, and the Negro has always been an alien minority since they first arrived on Egypt. Never at any point in history has the general populace of Egypt been anything other than Caucasoid.

Nefertari and a servant.

This is true whether we speak of the original Hamitic Mizraites, the Shemitic aristocracracy of the time of the Hebrews in Egypt (who we know to have been Europoids of haplogroup R1b) or its later, Ptolemic Greek, Arabic or other assorted more recent occupants.

https://christogenea.org/essays/race-genesis-10

https://www.igenea.com/en/tutankhamun

Tjuyu.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” like to point out that Jesus’ family fled into Egypt to hide from Herod and that St. Paul was mistaken once for an Egyptian. They then assert that this means Jesus’ family and St. Paul were Congoids who blended in among the alleged Congoid populace of Egypt. This is absurd for a number of reasons.

Egyptian men baking bread.

Firstly the family of Christ was not persued into Egypt by Herod and so would not necessarily have needed to blend in at all. Of course Egypt has never been populated by a predominantly Congoid population, and at the time of Christ it was in fact a Roman province steeped in Ptolemic Greek culture.

Egyptian soldier.

Anyone from anywhere in the Roman Empire could’ve fit in somewhere in 1st century Egypt, and a Congoid would have stood out from the populace more than a Europoid.

Thutmose IV.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” point out that Moses was once mistaken for an Egyptian by the daughters of Jethro and they claim this proves he was a Negroe. However we know exactly how the Egyptian aristocracy in the time of Moses (18th dynasty) looked from their remains. Here I have gathered some images of 18th dynasty mummies such as Ramesses II, Yuya, Tjuyu, Thutmose IV and Ossipumphnoferu and they are unquestionably Europoid with Nordid features and fair hair.

Egyptian couple.

It has been proven by archaeogenetics that the ancient Egyptians had less sub-Saharan admixture than even Egypt’s modern Caucasoid inhabitants which still have fairly little. Most of this admixture was introduced after the Islamic era though some undoubtedly occured in more ancient times.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

Egyptian musicians.

It is clear from the art of the Egyptians throughout the ages that the general populace of Egypt was always of Caucasoid stock with varying degrees of mongrelization while the only representions of Congoids depict slaves and foreigners.

https://christogenea.org/gallery/white-ancient-egypt

Ramses III and Isis.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” and other Afrocentrists claim that the word Kemet meaning “black land” (the Egyptian’s name for their own land) refers to it being inhabited by Congoids. This however is an erroneous assumption as Kemet more probably refers to the rich black soil of the Nile Delta and not the skin colour of the inhabitants.

Yuya.

The Hebrew word Cham (Ham, meaning “warm”, the father of the Egyptians) and kem (an Egyptian word meaning “black”) are related words by the association of darkness and heat, and this is pointed out by Gesenius in his entry for Cham. However in Hebrew the word Cham primarily refers to warmth.

Nefertiabet

In archaic English use (such as in Gesenius’ time) black does not strictly refer to pitch black or to the Congoid race, but also refers to varying degrees of swarthiness relative to the typical palor of the Anglo-Saxons. Examples of such a use include “Black Irish” and “Black Dutch” which both simply refer to black haired people with Mediterrannid phenotypes. Thus Cham and kem cannot rightly be assumed to refer to Congoids.

Nefertari.

Those Afrocentrists who contend that Egypt belonged originally to the Congoid race point to certain classical historians, who were writing during and after the time when Egypt was a province of the Persian Empire. This period is long after the golden age of Pharaonic Egypt had passed and when Egypt was full of foreigners, notably the Nilotic Nubians.

Amenhotep III and Queen Tiy.

Several ancient Greek historians noted that Egyptians had complexions that were “melanchroes” and hair that was “oulotrichos” and many translators over the years have rendered these words into English as “black” and “wooly haired” while others, such as Robin Waterfield and Carolyn Dewald rendered these words as “dark skinned” and “curly haired”.

Ramesses II.

Oulotrichos literally and simply means “curly (oulo) haired (trichos)” and no component corresponds to the Greek word for wool (erion). Melanchroes refers to any complexion percieved as dark comparative to the pallour of the typical ancient Greek which is evident in one excerpt from Homer’s Odyssey:

“With this, Athena touched him [Odysseus] with her golden wand. A well-washed cloak and a tunic she first of all cast about his breast, and she increased his stature and his youthful bloom. Once more he grew dark of color [melanchroies], and his cheeks filled out, and dark grew the beard about his chin.”
-Odyssey 16.172-176

Psusennes I.

It is clear from the context that Homer means describes a swarthy complexion rather than blackness and intends to describe Odysseus regaining his youthful color. It would be absurd to think that during the process of rejuvenation Odysseus turned from white to black as a Negroe, this despite the numerous ancient artistic portrayals of Odysseus as a typical ancient Greek.

Nefertari and a servant.

It is most probable that these Classical writers such as Herodotus were describing swarthy and curly haired specimens of the Mediterranid race and not black skinned and wooly headed Congoids. Of course at the time of these authors it is entirely plausible that the Egyptians had become mingled with Nubian Congoids darkening their complexion just as we see among many modern Egyptians, however it is very clear that other ancient writers did not perceive the Egyptians to be homogeneous with the Congoids and Aethiopids dwelling to their South.

Ossipumphnoferu.

Here Manilius states that the Egyptians were not as dark as the Ethiopians having a medium skin tone.

“The Ethiopians stain the world and depict a race of men steeped in darkness; less sun-burnt are the natives of India; the land of Egypt, flooded by the Nile, darkens bodies more mildly owing to the inundation of its fields: it is a country nearer to us and its moderate climate imparts a medium tone.”
-Manilius, Astronomica 4.724

Egyptian men making bricks.

Strabo tells us that the people of Northern India looked much like the Egyptians while the inhabitants of Southern India are said to have been dark like the Ethiopians.

“As for the people of India, those in the south are like the Aethiopians in color, although they are like the rest in respect to countenance and hair (for on account of the humidity of the air their hair does not curl), whereas those in the north are like the Egyptians.”
-Strabo, Geography 15.1.13

Thutmose III.

Philostratus informs us here that the Egyptians had a lighter complexion than their southerly neighbours.

“Now the inhabitants of the marches [Nubian-Egyptian border] are not yet fully black but are half-breeds in matter of color, for they are partly not so black as the Ethiopians, yet partly more so than the Egyptians.”
-Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 6.2

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/12/26/the-noahite-nations-the-hamites/

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that the bondage in Egypt described in Deuteronomy 28.68 was fulfilled in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but this is easily disproven. This curse was actually fulfilled on two separate occasions in history. First when Ptolemy sent conquered Judaeans on ships to Schedia in Egypt as slaves.

“7 Bound, and exposed to public gaze, they were hurried violently on board ship. 8 The husbands of these, in the prime of their youthful vigour, instead of crowns wore halters round their necks; instead of feasting and youthful jollity, spent the rest of their nuptial days in wailings, and saw only the grave at hand. 9 They were dragged along by unyielding chains, like wild beasts: of these, some had their necks thrust into the benches of the rowers; while the feet of others were enclosed in hard fetters. 10 The planks of the deck above them barred out the light, and shut out the day on every side, so that they might be treated like traitors during the whole voyage. 11 They were conveyed accordingly in this vessel, and at the end of it arrived at Schedia. The king had ordered them to be cast into the vast hippodrome, which was built in front of the city. This place was well adapted by its situation to expose them to the gaze of all comers into the city, and of those who went from the city into the country. Thus they could hold no communication with his forces; nay, were deemed unworthy of any civilized accommodation. 12 When this was done, the king, hearing that their brethren in the city often went out and lamented the melancholy distress of these victims, 13 was full of rage, and commanded that they should be carefully subjected to the same (and not one whit milder) treatment. 14 The whole nation was now to be registered. Every individual was to be specified by name; not for that hard servitude of labour which we have a little before mentioned, but that he might expose them to the before-mentioned tortures; and finally, in the short space of a day, might extirpate them by his cruelties. 15 The registering of these men was carried on cruelly, zealously, assiduously, from the rising of the sun to its going down, and was not brought to an end in forty days. 16 The king was filled with great and constant joy, and celebrated banquets before the temple idols. His erring heart, far from the truth, and his profane mouth, gave glory to idols, deaf and incapable of speaking or aiding, and uttered unworthy speech against the Greatest God. 17 At the end of the above-mentioned interval of time, the registrars brought word to the king that the multitude of the Judeans was too great for registration, 18 inasmuch as there were many still left in the land, of whom some were in inhabited houses, and others were scattered about in various places; so that all the commanders in Egypt were insufficient for the work.”
-3 Maccabees 4

The curse of slavery in Egypt was fulfilled again when the the Romans subdued the Judaeans who God was punishing for their rebellion against him in rejecting and crucifying Christ. Many of these Judaeans were sent to labour in Roman mines in Egypt.

“2. And now, since his soldiers were already quite tired with killing men; and yet there appeared to be a vast multitude still remaining alive; Cæsar gave orders, that they should kill none but those that were in arms, and opposed them: but should take the rest alive. But, together with those whom they had orders to slay, they slew the aged, and the infirm. But for those that were in their flourishing age; and who might be useful to them, they drove them together into the temple; and shut them up within the walls of the court of the women. Over which Cæsar set one of his freed men: as also Fronto, one of his own friends: which last was to determine every one’s fate, according to his merits. So this Fronto slew all those that had been seditious, and robbers, who were impeached one by another. But of the young men he chose out the tallest, and most beautiful; and reserved them for the triumph. And as for the rest of the multitude, that were above seventeen years old, he put them into bonds, and sent them to the Egyptian mines.”
-Josephus, Wars of the Judaeans, 6.9.2

As we have seen, the “Black Hebrew Israelites” do not fit any of the blessings given to Israel. Having a mentality of victimhood as they do, they seek desperately to claim that they fit the curses placed on Israel, but they do not. These curses were fulfilled in the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities of Judah and Israel many centuries ago when the Israelites were carried captive out of their lands and later when the Greeks and Romans subdued the Judaeans.

The “Black Hebrew Israelite” interpretation of Deuteronomy 28 completely ignores the fact that those curses were to take place starting in Israel’s own lands, fields and cities (18, 21, 24, 33, 40, 42, 51, 52, 55, 57) and not in the land of their captivity which the “Black Hebrew Israelites” consider to be West Africa and America. In Deuteronomy 28.36 we see that the Israelites would have one appointed king when they went into the land of their captivity. Would the “Black Hebrew Israelites” have us believe that all the Bantu tribes were ruled by a single king from the time of their alleged migration from Canaan all the way up until they were taken captive to the Americas?

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that the 400 years of sojourning in alien lands is a prophecy pertaining to the trans-Atlantic slave trade.

“13 And it was said unto him: Know thou beforehand that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, and they shall bring them under bondage, and afflict them four hundred years.”
-Genesis 15

They claim that they are currently in that land awaiting liberation, but the fact is Antao Goncalves and Nuno Tristao brought the first cargo of Bantu slaves across the Atlantic in 1441. If they were to be liberated after 400 years that should’ve occurred in 1841. In truth they interpretation is not in accord with the strict meaning of the text. The prophecy at Genesis 15.13 only necessitates that the Israelites sojourn in strange lands and be afflicted by the inhabitants for 400 years and that they be enslaved for an undefined period of time during that sojourning. This was all fulfilled long before the trans-Atlantic slave trade as indicated in Acts 7.

Paul explains in Galatians that it was four hundred and thirty years from the original Genesis 12 promise to Abraham to the time of the giving of the Law to Israel at Mount Sinai (Galatians 3.17). Once it is realized that Moses was only the third generation from Levi (1 Chronicles 6.1-3), that Moses was eighty years old when the Exodus began (Exodus 7.7), and that all of the leaders of the Israelites as they are reckoned from the sons of Jacob to the time of the Exodus, compared with the genealogies in the Book of Numbers and in Chronicles, are only as many as six or seven generations removed from the twelve sons of Jacob, then it is clear that the time of the actual enslavement of Israel was only approximately 150 to 180 years.

The time from God’s declaration to Abraham in Genesis 15.13 until the Exodus was about four hundred years, and therefore God had all of that time in consideration when the collective seed of Abraham wandered in foreign lands. Abraham was seventy-five when he departed from Haran (Genesis 12.4), beginning Paul’s 430 years. He was one hundred years old when Isaac was born (Genesis 21.5), Isaac was sixty years old when Jacob was born (Genesis 25.26) and Jacob was 130 years old when he went down to Egypt with his sons (Genesis 47.9). Therefore we can add 25, 60 and 130 leaving another 215 years for the time from Jacob’s going to Egypt unto the giving of the law at Sinai, thus we arrive at the 430 years of Galatians 3.17.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that only the Negroes of the trans-Atlantic slave trade fulfilled the curse of being enslaved in all nations (Deuteronomy 28.64, Luke 21.24) but the truth is that the Biblical scope of “the world” is certainly not the whole globe and all its inhabitants. Rather it was only the portions of Eurasia and Northeastern Africa known to Adamic man and the inhabitants thereof listed in Genesis 10. The words commonly translated “world” were never perceived in ancient times to refer to the whole of the planet. Erets (H776, “land”), oikoumene (G3625, “inhabited earth”), and kosmos (G2889, “adorning”, “society” or “order”) were never intended to describe the whole planet which was largely unknown to Biblical authors.

In the New Testament we see “the whole world” defined as the inhabited earth known to Greco-Roman civilization (Luke 2.1). Even the Germanic origin of the word world (Proto-Germanic *weraldi-, “age of man”) employed by the KJV translators indicates a temporal distinction and not a spacial one. Thus it is absurd to imagine that the curse of bondage or captivity in all the nations of the world describes a dispersion throughout the whole globe as slaves. Rather it only refers to the captivity of the Israelites and the Judaeans in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman empires.

https://christogenea.org/articles/what-world

Many “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that African Americans are truly native to the Americas and that they are related to the Amerindians. Aside from the absurdity of that notion from a historical perspective there is also no genetic or anthropological evidence for this claim. The native Americans preceding recorded migrations from the Old World were all of Mongoloid, Australoid or Caucasoid stock and extremely genetically distant from Congoids.

The real reasons the “Black Hebrew Israelites” accept native Americans as kin is in reality quite base: they want to fornicate with Amerindians and mestizos. Their ideas of race are very loose and they typically accept any degree of miscegenation on the maternal side. Thus they feel free to miscegenate as their kind is wont to do.

Something else is at work here. Many prominent figures in the “Black Hebrew Israelites” are of partial Latino heritage or other mysterious but obvious non-black heritage. Of course many Latinos are of Edomite Jewish “converso” descent and this acceptance of Latinos among “Black Hebrew Israelites” is a means for Edomite Jews to head or influence the movement.

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/mexicans-traced-cain-son-satan

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/us/hispanics-uncovering-roots-as-inquisitions-hidden-jews.html

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to draw attention to Jewish-African ties some even claiming descent from Sephardic Jews who settled Africa after being driven out of Spain for exploitative usury and pedophilic ritual murder. They think somehow this validates their claims, but when one realizes that the Jews of today are Edomites by birth, this can only be seen as discrediting the “Black Hebrew Israelites”.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

The Jew owned media has no qualms whatsoever with any non-White race claiming Israelite heritage and have produced many mainstream documentaries investigating the matter of the lost tribes. These documentaries consider just about every racial group but White Europeans as the Edomite Jews thrive on confusion and deceit.

The profound Edomite Jewish influence on “Black Hebrew Israelites” is quite visible in many of their customs. They often wear modern Jewish accessories like yarmulkes and “star of David” pendants (the star of Rephan or “seal of Solomon”, a Jewish occult symbol) and they often reference rabbinical literature.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” should be seen for what they are; a conglomerate of anti-Christ imposters who desperately covet Jacob’s inheritance. An alliance of Edomite Jews and their mixed-race lackeys to undermine Christendom and further hide the truth of our Christian Israelite Identity.

Concerning the Ancient Aethiops

The duel of Achilles (L) and Memnon the Ethiopian (R), Vase of the Tyszkiewicz Painter, 6th century BC.

As many Christian Identity folks are already aware, many try to claim the Ethiopians/Cushites were negroes. Usually this is done in an attempt to support a universalist position. Favoured claims are that Moses’ wife Zipporah was a negress and that the Ethiopian eunuch was a negroe. These claims are all easily refuted, but that is not my purpose here, and many scholars have covered these matters at length.

Suffice it to say that the Ethiopian eunuch was clearly a Judaean serving in the Ethiopian Court, which is easily established by the fact that he possessed Scriptures (Acts 8.28) and was making a pilgrimage to the temple (8.27) where only Judaeans were permitted (Acts 21.28-29, 24.5-6, the Temple Warning inscription). He was also converted before Cornelius and the agreement to convert the nations. Judaeans are elsewhere referred to as Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Cretes and Arabians according to their residence and not their ethnicity (Acts 2.5-11) and this is certainly the case with the Ethiopian eunuch. The fact that the Ethiopian Eunuch was a Judaean was also known to the early Christian writers Irenaeus and Pontius (Against Heresies 4.23.2-4.24.1, Life of St. Cyprian 3).

Zipporah was a Midianite or a Cushite from the Ethiopia of Asia (Herodotus, Histories 3.94, 7.70, Josephus Antiquities 1.6.2). This is apparent from the fact that Moses met her in Midian (Exodus 2.15), of which her father was high priest (2.16) and that her father Jethro is elsewhere called a Midianite (Numbers 10.29). There is more to be said of the Ethiopia of Asia that can be gleaned from classical history and Scripture which we will not discuss here. The focus of this article will be on the Ethiopia of Africa. What is important to note concerning the Ethiopia of Asia is that the African Ethiopians were of the same Caucasoid stock as the Asiatic Ethiopians.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/12/26/the-noahite-nations-the-hamites/

After describing the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus Siculus goes on to describe in contrast the primitive hominids dwelling in Ethiopia and nearby regions.

“1 But there are also a great many other tribes of the Ethiopians, some of them dwelling in the land lying on both banks of the Nile and on the islands in the river, others inhabiting the neighbouring country of Arabia, and still others residing in the interior of Libya. 2 The majority of them, and especially those who dwell along the river, are black in colour and have flat noses and woolly hair. As for their spirit they are entirely savage and display the nature of a wild beast, not so much, however, in their temper as in their ways of living; for they are squalid all over their bodies, they keep their nails very long like the wild beasts, and are as far removed as possible from human kindness to one another; 3 and speaking as they do with a shrill voice and cultivating none of the practices of civilized life as these are found among the rest of mankind, they present a striking contrast when considered in the light of our own customs.” 
-Library of History, 3.8.1

When describing the civilized Ethiopians Diodorus makes no mention of their physical characteristics, but when he mentions the savages the first things he notes are their black skin, flat noses and wooly hair. I think that if Diodorus had observed these physical traits among the civilized Ethiopians, he would not have made specific note of them among the savage Ethiopians. It is very doubtful there were any purely Adamic Ethiopians in Diodorus’ time, but certainly there was a remnant of their civilization and blood.

In section 1.23 in the second book of Pomponious Mela’s Chorographia he makes mention of Leucaethiopians or White Ethiopians inhabiting a certain region along the Libyan Sea.

“On those shores washed by the Libyan Sea, however, are found the Libyan Aegyptians, the White Aethiopians, and, a populous and numerous nation, the Gaetuli. Then a region, uninhabitable in its entire length, covers a broad and vacant expanse.”

In section 5.8 of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History we read again of White Ethiopians.

“If we pass through the interior of Africa in a southerly direction, beyond the Gaetuli, after having traversed the intervening deserts, we shall find, first of all the Liby-Egyptians, and then the country where the Leucaethiopians dwell.”

These sources do not agree on a single precise location for these White Ethiopians but both attest to their existence and place them near the Libyan-Egyptians and the Berber tribe of the Gaetuli. It is probable that many fled Ethiopia in the wake of the incursions of Nilotic and Bantu tribes, but the most likely cause of this dispersion is the deportation of of the Ethiopians and Egyptians by Esarhaddon prophecied in Isaiah 20 and attested to in Assyrian inscriptions. Thus we see them neighbouring these Libyan-Egyptians, also seemingly uprooted from their original homelands. Undoubtedly these deportations contributed greatly to the decline of genuine Cushite blood in Ethiopia.

The duel of Achilles (L) and Memnon the Ethiopian (R), grave amphora, Southern Italy, 4th century BC.

In the 4th-century AD a remnant of the Cushites continued to be perceived as distinct from the black tribes of the region. A 4th century victory stela commemorating the Axumite king Ezana contains inscriptions describing separate ethnic groups dwelling in ancient Nubia: Kushites and Noba/Nubians. The Nubians themselves seem to be divided into “red” and “black” groups while both are distinguished from the Cushites. Reading from RIE 189, Bernard et al. (1991:263):

“7.By the power of the Lord of All I made war on the Noba once 8.the confederations of the Noba had made war, having acted haughtily. “They will not cross the Takkazē!” said the confeder9.ations of the Noba. At that time they had wrought havoc upon the peoples of the Mangurto and the Khasa and the Barya, and the blacks 10.made war on the reds. … 28.And I reached the Kushites and killed them and took [others] prisoner at the 29.confluence of the Nile and the Takkazē rivers … And from there I sent the division of Ḥalēn, the division of Lūkēn, and 35.the division of Sabarāt, Falḥa, and Ṣerā’ down the Nile against the four towns of 36.straw of the Noba: [the town of] Negwase; [and] the towns of brick of the Kushites which the Noba had captured, Tabito [and] 37.Fertoti. And they reached the territory of the Red Noba, and my tr38.oops returned safe and sound, having taken prisoners and killed and seized booty by the power of the Lord of Hea39.ven.”

The 16th century Berber explorer Leo Africanus described the existence of various “white” or “olive” groups and individuals inhabiting the Horn of Africa, comprising much of the population of the Adal Sultanate and Mogadishu Sultanate (The History and Description of Africa, Hakluyt Society, pgs. 52-53). He further asserts that pockets of other “white” or “olive” skinned residents could also be found on two small islands north of Socotra and in parts of the Zanguebar coast (ibid. pg. 88).

Many look at the average Ethiopian, or select tribes of Ethiopia and see that they have dark brown or black skin and often have nappy hair. Some tribes in Ethiopia are in fact negroes (hereafter Congoids, the appropriate racial classification) but these are not autocthonous nor are they the majority. These Congoid populations in the Horn of Africa descend from more recent Nilotic and Bantu migrations alien to ancient Ethiopia. The fact is, that the racial archetype of Ethiopia (Aethiopid) is a subtype of the Caucasoid race and not the Congoid race. Aethiopids are a Mediterranid stabilized with a Congoid element with other Caucasoid influences in certain Aethiopic subtypes.

Aethiopids have large braincases and high vaulted skulls whereas Congoids have smaller braincases and low vaulted skulls. Aethiopids have no protrusion of the jaws as do Congoids and they also lack the large teeth of the Congoid race. The Aethiopid race lacks the rectangular shape of the palate and eye orbit typical of Congoids and the large and round nasal cavity of the Congoid is also absent in the Aethiopid.

Aethiopids typically have lighter skin and sometimes wavy or moderately curly hair. Aethiopids do not exhibit the wide and flat nose of the Congoid race and rather have long and narrow noses. They have limbs of typical Caucasoid proportions which lack the extra length of the Congoid’s limbs. They are by no means Congoid either in their morphology or craniometry. In layman’s terms they appear as if the skin of a Negroe was draped over the flesh and bone of a Caucasian. The American anthropologist Carleton S. Coon explains the racial state of the Horn of Africa today very well where he states:

“On the basis of these correlations, it is evident that the partly negroid appearance of Ethiopians and of Somalis is due to a mixture between whites and negroes, and that the Ethiopian cannot be considered the representative of an undifferentiated stage in the development of both whites and blacks, as some anthropologists would have us believe. On the whole, the white strain is much more numerous and much more important metrically, while in pigmentation and in hair form the negroid influence has made itself clearly seen.”
-Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe 9.8

https://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XI8.htm

Another matter of anthropological interest to Ethiopia is the fact that Ethiopia is ethno-linguistically Afro-Asiatic. The various Congoid peoples generally speak Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan languages which are distinct from the Afro-Asiatic languages spoken by the autocthones of Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Afro-Asiatic-languages

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Niger-Congo-languages

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nilo-Saharan-languages

Today the autocthonous Afro-Asiatic speakers of the Horn of Africa retain a large portion of identifiable Eurasian genetic markers. The percentage of identifiable Eurasian markers peaks in Semitic and Cushitic speaking populations but also extends into adjacent populations. This is to say nothing of the regionally African genetic markers which cannot be clearly identified with any specific populations and which may be of Caucasoid origin.

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/7/2632/tab-figures-data

(L to R) Andromeda (an Ethiopian), Perseus and Cepheus (Andromeda’s father, King of Ethiopia), Vase of the Sisyphus Group, 5th century BC.

In Biblical times Ethiopia is one of the first Adamic nations to be lost to miscegenation.

“For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour: I gave Egypt for thy ransom, Ethiopia and Seba for thee.”
-Isaiah 43.3

It seems God placed these Hamites between Israel and the non-Adamic sub-Saharan Congoid tribes who had crossed the desert and begun to move into Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Ethiopia and Egypt exist as nations (in the deracinated modern sense), but certainly the posterity of the original Hamitic inhabitants has been lost.

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

Some point to Jeremiah 13.23 as evidence that the Ethiopians originated as a black skinned race.

“23If the Ethiopian shall change his skin, or the leopardess her spots, then shall ye be able to do good, having learnt evil.”
-Jeremiah 13

However Jeremiah wrote later than Isaiah who spoke in hindsight of God forfeiting Ethiopia and other Hamitic nations in Africa. Thus we should fully expect many of the Ethiopians of the time of Jeremiah to have been darkened and dissimilar to their original racial state. Nonetheless we need not assume that the darkness of the Ethiopians compared to the Israelites was the product of miscegenation as the Hamites were generally of Mediterranean stock. This can be clearly seen in the art of the Egyptians and the “Minoans”. As I hope to have demonstrated elsewhere, the “Minoans”/Cretans are one and the same as the Biblical Philistines. To the pale Israelites such stock would surely have seemed dark in comparison to themselves and other Semites.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/12/26/the-noahite-nations-the-hamites/

‘Physical Descriptions and Depictions of the Adamites, Shemites, Hebrews, Israelites and Judahites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/01/physical-descriptions-of-the-adamites-shemites-hebrews-israelites-and-judahites-2/

The word Ethiopia itself is of interest. It is commonly thought to come from two Greek components. Aitho (to scorch) and ops (the face). Pure-blooded congoids do not commonly suffer greatly from sunburn, and it would seem that aithiops must describe a sunburn or tan. The component aithos itself may be taken to mean “shining” and if we take aithiops to mean “shining face”, then neither can this describe a Congoid, whose face absorbs light rather than reflecting it.

I believe that in light of this evidence the Scriptural narrative and Christian Identity position concerning the Ethiopia of Africa is wholly validated. In Ethiopia we see a land founded by White Hamites grown racially corrupt. After the Nilotic and Bantu expansions out of Central and Western Africa in the 2nd millennium BC and the deportations of the Ethiopians by Esarhadon in the 7th century BC the descendants of Cush in Africa dwindled and darkened.

The Serpent Race in the Gospel of Matthew

‘The Devil Sowing Tares’ -Abraham Bloemaert

In recent writings I have endeavoured to illustrate that the events of Genesis chapters 1-3 represent the creation of the children of God, and the corruption of that creation by Satan. This culminates in the conflict of Genesis 3.15:

“I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.”
-Genesis 3

‘Adam: The Patriarch of One Race’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/adam-the-patriarch-of-one-race/

‘The Origins of the Serpent Seed’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-origins-of-the-serpent-seed/

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

This narrative is shrouded in idioms long lost to time and the death of ancient Mesopotamian culture, but we must also understand that the details of these events had not been fully illuminated until the days of Christ:

“34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
-Matthew 13

“The foundation of the world” is a reference to the opening chapters of Genesis and the creation when the foundations of the earth were laid. Now let’s see what Jesus revealed to us. “He who has ears to hear, let him hear”:

“24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.”
-Matthew 13

As I hope to have established in prerequisite writings, plant life often symbolizes family trees, races and nations. There are dozens of passages in Scripture which use this idiom, but here Christ explains the idiom to us himself:

“36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed [sperma, G4690] is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed [sperma, G4690] are the children [huioi, Strong’s G5207, meaning a son or descendant] of the kingdom; but the tares are the children [huioi G5207] of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.”
-Matthew 13

Here Christ explains to us in no uncertain terms that there are souls planted in this world who have their origin not with God, but Satan. His words recall to mind Malachi 4.2

“1For, behold, a day comes burning as an oven, and it shall consume them; and all the aliens [allogeneis, Strong’s G241, meaning literally “of another race”], and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that is coming shall set them on fire, saith the Lord Almighty, and there shall not be left of them root or branch. 2But to you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise, and healing shall be in his wings: and ye shall go forth, and bound as young calves let loose from bonds. 3And ye shall trample the wicked; for they shall be ashes underneath your feet in the day which I appoint, saith the Lord Almighty.”
-Malachi 4

In the New Testament there is a great deal of evidence for what I endeavour to demonstrate but for now we will focus on Matthew.

In the second chapter of Matthew we find that King Herod is greatly troubled by the birth of Christ and seeks to kill him slaughtering many baby boys in the process.

King Herod and the entire Herodian dynasty were Edomites by race, and this is affirmed many times in the writings of Flavius Josephus (Antiquities 14.3, 12.8 et al.).

These Edomites had risen to the peaks of power in Judaea through murder of the Hasmonean dynasty and by bribing Mark Antony. This demonic madman, Herod “the Great”, is spoken of in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and there we find him fittingly playing the role allotted to the dragon, who represents the entire serpent race:

“1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman [Israel] clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars [the tribes]:

2 And she being with child [the Christ] cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon [the serpent seed], having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.

4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven [the rebellious Angels], and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child [Christ] as soon as it was born.

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”
-Revelation 12

Continuing with our investigation of the serpent race in the Gospel of Matthew we arrive at the 3rd chapter and the introduction of John the Baptist. John is baptizing people in the river and the Judaean religious authorities (mostly appointed by the Herodians) approach him to inquire of him concerning his ministry:

“7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O offspring [Strong’s G1081] of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father [the Edomites descended paternally from Abraham]: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
-Matthew 3

Right away John rebukes these men calling them a race of vipers. This is of course a reference to the serpent seed. See that he tells them not to pride themselves in their descent from Abraham.

The Edomites descended from Abraham’s race-mixing grandson Esau, and on their maternal side they descended from a conglomeration of non-Adamic tribes which the Edomites had been joined to since their first generation. Esau-Edom had fallen from a high place as the firstborn of Isaac to a lowly place as the most despised nation of Scripture because of his fornication.

John said to his opponents “even now the axe is laid to the root of the tree”. Jesus had come to the land and was about to begin his ministry. His ministry would divide the people of Judaea and thus the judgement of the trees was underway.

The Edomites were of a vile spirit after their profane, idolatrous fornicating ancestors and so they would naturally be opposed to the gospel of Christ, but they had other reasons for despising Christ’s ministry.

The Edomites had only recently solidified their power in Judaea but were well on their way to complete racial and political domination of Judaea. Esau has long coveted Jacob’s covenant with God, and has constantly sought to do harm to Israel.

A religious reformation in Judaea threatened their newly found dominance of Judaeanism and all they had murdered and bribed to achieve. Thus these infiltrators were zealous enemies of Christ and his followers by necessity.

Verse 12 is a clear reference to the harvest as described by Christ in the parable of the wheat and the tares and a reminder to the serpent seed that its days are numbered.

Carrying on with Matthew we arrive in chapter 7 where Christ makes yet another reference to the hewing down and burning of evil plants (races) while also offering us helpful advice for distinguishing wheat and tares:

“15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”
-Matthew 7

Tares (lolium temulentum) look very much like wheat. It is for this reason that the master of the field (God) tells his servants to wait until the harvest is ripe to root up the tares, lest they uproot wheat along with them.

Edomite-Canaanite Jews are generally united by certain Armenoid or Arabid racial traits, but they are generally predominantly Europoid in phenotype. They often fit in well in Europe with Sephardim often passing as Southern or Western European and Ashkenazim as Northern or Eastern European.

Edomite Jews can often blend in very well racially among Israelite Christians, and these “ravenous wolves” use this to enter our fold. Christ assures us that their deeds will expose them to the watchful Christian who knows them by their fruits.

In Matthew chapter 12 we find similar statements. This time in the context of the blasphemy of the Pharisees:

“33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 Offspring [gennemata, Strong’s G1081] of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.”
-Matthew 12

Now we have arrived back at chapter 13 where I introduced the topic with the parable of the wheat and the tares. Here we find another parable echoing the same theme as that of the parable of the wheat and the tares:

“47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind [genos, Strong’s G1053, meaning race]:

48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.

49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
-Matthew 13

By now the implications of this verse should be clear and require no further explanation. Recall now when Christ told certain of his disciples they would be fishers of men (Matthew 4.19).

There is one reference to the serpent seed found in Matthew chapter 15. It is brief, but provides another witness that God did not plant every race on this earth. After his disciples inform Jesus that he has offended the Pharisees with his teachings we read:

“13 But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.”
-Matthew 15

Here in Matthew 21 Christ performs a miracle which indicates the fulfillment and sealing of prophecy:

“18 Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.”
-Matthew 21

Jeremiah prophecied of the corruption of the stock of Judaea in chapter 24. Here the prophet refers to the Edomites and halfbreeds of Judaea as “bad figs” and the Israelites of Judaea as “good figs”.

“1The Lord shewed me two baskets of figs, lying in front of the temple of the Lord, after Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon had carried captive Jechonias son of Joakim king of Juda, and the princes, and the artificers, and the prisoners, and the rich men out of Jerusalem, and had brought them to Babylon. 2The one basket was full of very good figs, as the early figs; and the other basket was full of very bad figs, which could not be eaten, for their badness. 3And the Lord said to me, What seest thou, Jeremias? and I said, Figs; the good figs, very good; and the bad, very bad, which cannot be eaten, for their badness.

4And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel; As these good figs, so will I acknowledge the Judeans that have been carried away captive, whom I have sent forth out of this place into the land of the Chaldeans for good. 6And I will fix mine eyes upon them for good, and I will restore them into this land for good: and I will build them up, and not pull them down; and I will plant them, and not pluck them up. 7And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord: and they shall be to me a people, and I will be to them a God: for they shall turn to me with all their heart.

8And as the bad figs, which cannot be eaten, for their badness; thus saith the Lord, So will I deliver Sedekias king of Juda, and his nobles, and the remnant of Jerusalem, them that are left in this land, and the dwellers in Egypt. 9And I will cause them to be dispersed into all the kingdoms of the earth, and they shall be for a reproach, and a proverb, and an object of hatred, and a curse, in every place whither I have driven them out.”
-Jeremiah 24

The prophet Jeremiah speaks here of “the remnant of Jerusalem, them that are left in this land, and the dwellers in Egypt.” These are Judaeans who evaded the Babylonian captivity and remained in Judaea and neighbouring regions.

They came to be overwhelmed by the Edomites, Canaanites and others who moved into the lands of Israel and Judah after they were deported by the Assyrians and Babylonians.

The result was a nation partially comprised of paganized and racially impure Judaeans. These events predate even the Edomite conversion to Judaism in 125 BC. The fornication and heresy of Judah was known well to the prophet:

“20For of old thou hast broken thy yoke, and plucked asunder thy bands; and thou has said, I will not serve thee, but will go upon every high hill, and under every shady tree, there will I indulge in my fornication.

21Yet I planted thee a fruitful vine, entirely of the right sort: how art thou a strange vine turned to bitterness!

22Though thou shouldest wash thyself with nitre, and multiply to thyself soap, still thou art stained by thine iniquities before me, saith the Lord.”
-Jeremiah 2

These” bad figs” of Judah and the vision of Jeremiah are alluded to again in the New Testament when Christ twice cursed the fig tree upon finding the temple turned into a “den of theives” (Matthew 21:18–22, Mark 11:12–14, 11:20–25).

Next we come to chapter 23 and a lengthly rebuke by Christ to the scribes and Pharisees:

“29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,

30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33 Ye serpents, ye offspring [G1081] of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this brood [genean, G1074].”
-Matthew 23

The Scriptures do not inform us of how the prophets each died, but on occasions when the priests of God are murdered we see characters such as Jezebel the Canaanitess or Doeg the Edomite responsible.

Christ holds their race responsible for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from Abel unto Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. This links one race from Cain in Eden to the 1st century Judaeans.

Christ was speaking to the scribes and Pharisees. The Pharisees were a mix of Israelites and Edomites like the rest of the 1st century Judaeans, but the scribes may have had among them Kenites, as some Kenites (sons of Cain) had been employed as scribes by the Judahites even before the Edomites began to be absorbed into Judaea (1Chronicles 2.55).

Even in more ancient times the Israelite tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi that would form the Kingdom of Judah had struggled with miscegenation and cohabitation with the Kenites and Canaanites. In Genesis 38.1-5 we read that Judah married Shuah, a Canaanitess who bore him three mongrel sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. While Er and Onan were both slain by God, Shelah lived and his descendants remained among Judah as we see in Numbers 26.20.

Only thanks to the wit of Tamar did Judah have Adamic posterity and we see that the sons of Tamar were counted as the first and second born of Judah. This is despite the fact that Shelah was their elder brother, proving the illegitimate status of the Canaanite mongrel. In Judges 1.16-21 we find that Moses erred in marrying a Kenite woman and that the Kenites dwelt in the South of the land of Judah. There we also see that the Canaanite tribe of the Jebusites settled among the tribe of Benjamin in Jerusalem and we find in Joshua 15.63 that these Jebusites remained there.

It is now necessary to make a small digression concerning the relatives of Moses. There is some confusion among Biblical scholars concerning certain names found in the Old Testament applied to Moses’ relatives. In the book of Exodus we read of Moses’ father in law, the priest of Midian (Exodus 2.16-18), and a Midianite by race (Numbers 10.29). In their strict adherence to the Masoretic Text of the Jews many scholars have errantly associated Jethro the Midianite with another figure; Moses’ Kenite father in law. This has led to many confused attempts to explain how Jethro could be both a Midianite and a Kenite. They also try to assign three different names found in the Masoretic Text to the single figure of Jethro which seems quite implausible. 

In truth Jethro was only known by one other name; Raguel. This is evident in Exodus 2.16-18 in the Septuagint where he is refered to by both names in the same passage and Numbers 10.29 where Raguel is called the father in law of Moses and a Midianite. In Numbers 10.29 in the Masoretic Text and the Vulgate Jethro/Raguel is named as the father of Hobab. At Judges 4.11 in the Masoretic Text Hobab is refered to as a Kenite and the father in law of Moses. One might conclude based on this that Jethro was also a Kenite and known by a third name, Hobab, but this is in conflict with the fact that Jethro is elsewhere refered to as a Midianite. The reconciliation is to be found in the Septuagint where Judges 4.11 has Jobab and not Hobab, thus we may conclude that the Hobab descended from Jethro/Raguel was a Midianite and unrelated to this Jobab the Kenite whose daughter Moses errantly wed. 

The Kenites had become absorbed into the Canaanite nations at an early time, and Esau-Edom had become absorbed partially into the Canaanites, thus all three tribal groups carried some of Cain’s DNA. It is also likely that many of the Judaean elders were Canaanites themselves (Zechariah 14.21, Susanna 1.56) and so it’s possible all three cursed lineages had direct descendants in the 1st century Judaean populace, particularly among scribes and Pharisees. Thus Christ rightly accuses their brood of shedding the blood of Abel and Zacharias, and of all the righteous priests of God.

We now come near to the end of Christ’s conflict with the serpent seed during his earthly ministry. Of course Jesus was betrayed for 30 pieces of silver by Judah of Kerioth aka Judas Iscariot.

Judas was certainly an Edomite. Kerioth was 10 miles south of Hebron in what was called Idumea (Edom) in the time of Christ due to Edomite settlement.

Christ said that one of the twelve was a devil (John 6.70) and of course this was Judas who ultimately betrayed him to the Judaean authorities:

“15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.

16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.

17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?

18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.

19 When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.

20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.

22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.

23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.

24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.”
-Matthew 27

Pilate obviously objected to the killing of Christ and had found him innocent. He washed his hands of the matter and the Judaean masses declared “his blood be on us and our descendants”.

The Edomite Jews typically try to blame the Romans for the death of Jesus, but Jesus may forgive the Romans and his children among the Judaeans who participated in his torment and death. The children of Satan who they abided with have no hope of redemption.


The Origins of the Serpent Seed

‘Eve Tempted by the Serpent’ -John Roddam Spencer Stanhope

To understand our current plight as Christians we must have an understanding of the origins of not only ourselves, but of our adversaries. After the creation of Adam and his placement in the garden of Eden there was to be found a tree of knowledge of good and evil. Many understand this tree to be literal. Some understand it to be symbolic, but what is the symbolism?

It is evident in numerous places all throughout the prophets and the New Testament that trees, vines and other plant life symbolize people, families, nations and races. We will now establish this idiom (particularly as pertaining to nations and races) with a few examples from Scripture.

Here the prophet Jeremiah speaks of the fornication of Israel in mingling with the other nations:

“20For of old thou hast broken thy yoke, and plucked asunder thy bands; and thou has said, I will not serve thee, but will go upon every high hill, and under every shady tree, there will I indulge in my fornication.

21Yet I planted thee a fruitful vine, entirely of the right sort: how art thou a strange vine turned to bitterness!

22Though thou shouldest wash thyself with nitre, and multiply to thyself soap, still thou art stained by thine iniquities before me, saith the Lord.”
-Jeremiah 2

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/03/06/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation/

Here the prophet Ezekiel describes Assyria as a tall and proud tree:

“3Behold, Assyria was a cypress in Libanus, and was fair in shoots, and high in stature: his top reached to the midst of the clouds.

4The water nourished him, the depth made him grow tall; she led her rivers round about his plants, and she sent forth her streams to all the trees of the field.”
-Esekiel 31

Here the prophet Isaiah relates God’s promise to renew and replenish the nation of Israel:

“5I will be as dew to Israel: he shall bloom as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Libanus.

6His branches shall spread, and he shall be as a fruitful olive, and his smell shall be as the smell of Libanus.

7They shall return, and dwell under his shadow: they shall live and be satisfied with corn, and he shall flower as a vine: his memorial shall be to Ephraim as the wine of Libanus.

8What has he to do any more with idols? I have afflicted him, and I will strengthen him: I am as a leafy juniper tree. From me is thy fruit found.”
-Hosea 14

Here John the Baptist refers to the Edomites among the Pharisees as a race of vipers and promises that this bad race, represented as a tree not bearing good fruit, is to be hewn down:

“7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O offspring of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
-Matthew 3

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/identifying-tree-knowledge-good-and-evil

‘The Serpent Race in the Gospel of Matthew’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-serpent-race-in-the-gospel-of-matthew

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’ https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

There is another idiom which must be established if we are to understand the events in the garden and the fall of Adamic man. Here we will provide a witness from Scripture that the act of eating, particularly of eating what is forbidden, is symbolic of sexual intercourse.

“20This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I have done no wrong.””
-Proverbs 30

While it is only an apocryphal book, 4 Maccabees also illuminates another facet of this matter, indicating to us that the author of 4 Maccabees understood the sexual nature of the temptation of Eve.

“7 And the righteous mother of the seven children spake also as follows to her offspring: I was a pure virgin, and went not beyond my father’s house; but I took care of the built-up rib [Adam’s rib]. 8 No destroyer of the desert, or ravisher of the plain, injured me; nor did the destructive, deceitful snake, make spoil of my chaste virginity; and I remained with my husband during the period of my prime.”
-4 Maccabees 18

The notion that Eve lay with the serpent was certainly known to Christians in the past. The Protovengelion is an an apocryphal Christian text of the 2nd century AD and in it we see that the author clearly understood the sexual nature of Eve’s transgression.

“1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? 3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! and have not preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? 5Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7Just after the same manner it has happened to me. 8 Then Joseph arising from the ground, called her, and said, O thou who hast been so much favoured by God, why hast thou done this? 9 Why hast thou thus debased thy soul, who wast educated in the Holy of Holies, and received thy food from the hand of angels? 10 But she, with a flood of tears, replied, I am innocent, and have known no man.”
-Protevangelion 10:1-10

Another Christian text of the Celtic Church also testifies to the sexual nature of Eve’s seduction by the serpent. This testimony comes from an 8th century text known as the Loca Monachorum which contains a question and answer liturgy.

“Who died but was never born? (Adam).

Who gave but did not receive? (Eve, milk).

Who was born but did not die? (Elias and Enoch)

Who was born twice and died once? (Jonas the prophet, who for three days and three nights prayed in the belly of the whale. He neither saw the heavens nor touched the earth).

How many languages are there? (Seventy-two).

Who spoke with a dog? (St. Peter).

Who spoke with an ass? (Balaam the prophet).

Who was the first woman to commit adultery? (Eve with the serpent).

How were the Apostles baptized? (The Saviour washed their feet).”
-Ms. 908, The Loca Monachorum

One may reasonably dispute the authenticity of the Protevangelion and even perhaps the validity of the contents of the Loca Monachorum, but one may not reasonably dispute the fact that two geographically unconnected Christian assemblies centuries apart both understood that Eve committed adultery with the serpent.

Now that we have begun to see these idioms in Scripture and apocryphal biblical literature we will look to the profane literature of Mesopotamia so that we may further establish the nature of these ancient Shemitic idioms.

In the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh (a Shemitic text extant in the time of Moses) the wild beast-man Enkidu is seduced by a harlot for the purpose of captivating and taming him:

“Go, my hunter, take with thee a harlot-lass.
When he waters the beasts at the watering-place,
She shall pull off her clothing, laying bare her ripeness.
As soon as he sees her, he will draw near to her.
Reject him will his beasts that grew up on his steppe!”
-The Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet 1, part 3, lines 40-45

Notice that the sexual appeal of the harlot is described as ripeness, a characteristic of fruit. Now we will see as the harlot comes to Enkidu what comes of such seduction:

“The lass freed her breasts, bared her bosom,
And he possessed her ripeness.
She was not bashful as she welcomed his ardor.
She laid aside her cloth and he rested upon her.
She treated him, the savage, to a woman’s task,
As his love was drawn unto her.
For six days and seven nights Enkidu comes forth,
Mating with the lass.
After he had (his) fill of her charms,
He set his face toward his wild beasts.
On seeing him, Enkidu, the gazelles ran off,
The wild beasts of the steppe drew away from his body.
Startled was Enkidu, as his body became taut,
His knees were motionless – for his wild beasts had gone.
Enkidu had to slacken his pace – it was not as before;
But now he had [wi]sdom, [br]oader understanding.
Returning, he sits at the feet of the harlot.
He looks up at the face of the harlot,
His ears attentive, as the harlot speaks;
[The harlot] says to him, to Enkidu:
‘Thou art [wi]se, Enkidu, art become like a god!
Why with the wild creatures dost thou roam over the
steppe?
Come, let me lead thee [to] ramparted Uruk,
To the holy temple, abode of Anu and Ishtar,
Where lives Gilgamesh, accomplished in strength,
And like a wild ox lords it over the folk.’”
-The Epic of Gilgamesh, tablet 1, part 4, lines 16-39

Notice that after lying with the harlot that Enkidu “had wisdom, broader understanding”, and that his seductress tells him he had “become like a god” just as we see in Genesis:

“5For God knew that in whatever day ye should eat of it your eyes would be opened, and ye would be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes to look upon and beautiful to contemplate, and having taken of its fruit she ate, and she gave to her husband also with her, and they ate. 7And the eyes of both were opened, and they perceived that they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons to go round them.”
-Genesis 3

Observe that Adam and Eve are now ashamed of their nudity and conceal it, showing clearly the sexual nature of their shame.

As elsewhere in the Scriptures the serpent is Satan or one of his brood and it is clear that he and his ilk were cast down to earth where they and their brood are known idiomatically as the serpent and it’s seed aka a “race of vipers” or a “brood of vipers” (Genesis 3.15, John 8.44, Matthew 3.7, 23.33 et al.).

“18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”
-Luke 18

“7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.”
-Revelation 12

Many will point to the opening verse of Genesis 4 as evidence that Adam sired Cain. There is good indication that the extant text of Genesis 4.1 is corrupt, however I believe we must work with the extant text as we have it. Nonetheless it must be noted that Genesis 4.1 is an imperfect witness.

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/problem-genesis-4-1

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/contrary-genesis-4-1-adam-was-definitely-not-cain%E2%80%99s-father

While a single witness is insufficient basis for doctrine by itself, the extant text of Genesis 4 merits further analysis. Here we will quote from the King James Version to start.

“And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare (tikto, G5088, yalad, H3205) Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

2 And she again (prostithemi, G4369, yasaph, H3254) bare (tikto, G5088, yalad, H3205) his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”
-Genesis 4

One might conclude that this describes Adam siring Cain and Abel on separate occasions, but there is more to this passage than meets the eye upon a reading of most English translations. Both tikto and yalad refer to travailing in birth and not to pregnancy itself.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, G5088:
“bear, be born, bring forth
A strengthened form of a primary teko tek’-o (which is used only as alternate in certain tenses); to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literally or figuratively — bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.”

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, G5088:
“1) to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed) 
1a) of a woman giving birth 
1b) of the earth bringing forth its fruits 
1c) metaph. to bear, bring forth

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, H3205:
“bear, beget, birthday, born, make to bring forth children, young, bring up, calve,
A primitive root; to bear young; causatively, to beget; medically, to act as midwife; specifically, to show lineage — bear, beget, birth((-day)), born, (make to) bring forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child), time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail(-eth, -ing woman).”

In most translations of Genesis 4.2 prostithemi and yasaph are rendered “again”, but these words may both be understood to refer to continuance or addition. Thus they do not indicate a separation of the events of verses 1 and 2.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, G4369:
“add, give more, increase
From pros and tithemi; to place additionally, i.e. Lay beside, annex, repeat — add, again, give more, increase, lay unto, proceed further, speak to any more.”

Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon, G4369:
“1) to put to 
2) to add 
2a) i.e. to join to, gather with any company, the number of one’s followers or companions 
2a1) he was gathered to his fathers i.e. died”

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, H3254:
“add, again, any more, cease, come more, conceive again, continue, exceed,
A primitive root; to add or augment (often adverbial, to continue to do a thing) — add, X again, X any more, X cease, X come more, + conceive again, continue, exceed, X further, X gather together, get more, give more-over, X henceforth, increase (more and more), join, X longer (bring, do, make, much, put), X (the, much, yet) more (and more), proceed (further), prolong, put, be (strong-) er, X yet, yield.”

According to the definitions offered here for these Greek and Hebrew words one might reasonably understand Genesis 4.1-2 to refer to the birth of twins.

“And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and birthed Cain and said, I have gained a man through God. And she continued and birthed his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.”

Upon birthing Cain Eve says “I have gained a man through God”, but we should not take the claim of the first sinner at face value. Rather it must be that Eve was making an excuse for the strange child she’d birthed. It should be noted that she had nothing to say about a divine role in the birth of Abel.

It is hardly a rare occurence that a man lies with his wife only for her to conceive by another man and of course twins need not share a father. The process by which two or more ova from the same cycle are fertilized by sperm from separate acts of sexual intercourse with two different fathers is known as superfecundation. While this is a relatively rare occurrence, there is good reason to believe that this was the case with Cain and Abel.

Note that after the birth of Cain, it never says that Adam knew Eve again before birthing Abel. Yet later on when Seth is conceived we read that Adam knew Eve (Genesis 4.25). Why should we not find that Adam lay with Eve again to conceive Abel? Because Cain and Abel were twins and Adam had already conceived Abel when he knew Eve in verse 1.

While great care is taken to record genealogies in Scripture, never once is Cain listed as a descendant of Adam. Cain’s descendants have their own genealogies in Genesis 4, separate from those of Adam’s descendants listed in Genesis 5. Genesis 5 begins with “This is the book of the generation of Adam”, yet the Kenites are nowhere to be found there.

Seth was the replacement for Abel, while Cain was overlooked (Gen 4.25), something that would’ve been unneccessary if Cain were legitimate seed of Adam. Enoch was seventh from Adam (Jude 1.14) and his six predecessors were Abel, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel and Jared. This also excludes Cain from Adamic lineage.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/epistle-jude-05-11-2012

Noah was the eighth proclaimer of righteousness (2 Peter 2.5). Counting patriarchs up to Noah we find Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. This amounts to 10 patriarchs. Abel is not to be counted because he was never a patriarch as his life was cut short by Cain.

Enoch and Lamech were both outlived by their fathers and thus neither of them were ever to be counted as head patriarchs. Thus we can conclude that there were only eight patriarchs counting up to Noah. Of course Cain was discounted because, though he was the Kenite patriarch, he was not a son of Adam, nor was he righteous.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/2-peter-chapter-2-christogenea-talkshoe-03-30-2012

According to John (1 John 3.12) Cain was of “that wicked one”. Of course this phrase does not describe Adam. In Luke 11.44-51 and Matthew 22.29-35 Jesus rebukes Judaean scribes, Pharisees and lawyers and connects them to the Devil and Cain.

Christ states in these passages that He holds their race responsible for all the righteous blood shed upon the earth from Abel unto Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. This links one race from Cain in Eden to the 1st century Judaeans. 

The Pharisees were a mix of Israelites and Edomites like the rest of the 1st century Judaeans, but the scribes may have had among them Kenites, as some Kenites had been employed as scribes by the Judahites even before the Edomites began to be absorbed into Judaea (1 Chronicles 2.55).

Even in more ancient times the Israelite tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi that would form the Kingdom of Judah had struggled with miscegenation and cohabitation with the Kenites and Canaanites. In Genesis 38.1-5 we read that Judah married Shuah, a Canaanitess who bore him three mongrel sons, Er, Onan and Shelah. While Er and Onan were both slain by God, Shelah lived and his descendants remained among Judah as we see in Numbers 26.20.

Only thanks to the wit of Tamar did Judah have Adamic posterity and we see that the sons of Tamar were counted as the first and second born of Judah. This is despite the fact that Shelah was their elder brother, proving the illegitimate status of the Canaanite mongrel. In Judges 1.16-21 we find that Moses erred in marrying a Kenite woman and that the Kenites dwelt in the South of the land of Judah. There we also see that the Canaanite tribe of the Jebusites settled among the tribe of Benjamin in Jerusalem and we find in Joshua 15.63 that these Jebusites remained there.

It is now necessary to make a small digression concerning the relatives of Moses. There is some confusion among Biblical scholars concerning certain names found in the Old Testament applied to Moses’ relatives. In the book of Exodus we read of Moses’ father in law, the priest of Midian (Exodus 2.16-18), and a Midianite by race (Numbers 10.29). In their strict adherence to the Masoretic Text of the Jews many scholars have errantly associated Jethro the Midianite with another figure; Moses’ Kenite father in law. This has led to many confused attempts to explain how Jethro could be both a Midianite and a Kenite. They also try to assign three different names found in the Masoretic Text to the single figure of Jethro which seems quite implausible. 

In truth Jethro was only known by one other name; Raguel. This is evident in Exodus 2.16-18 in the Septuagint where he is refered to by both names in the same passage and Numbers 10.29 where Raguel is called the father in law of Moses and a Midianite. In Numbers 10.29 in the Masoretic Text and the Vulgate Jethro/Raguel is named as the father of Hobab. At Judges 4.11 in the Masoretic Text Hobab is refered to as a Kenite and the father in law of Moses. One might conclude based on this that Jethro was also a Kenite and known by a third name, Hobab, but this is in conflict with the fact that Jethro is elsewhere refered to as a Midianite. The reconciliation is to be found in the Septuagint where Judges 4.11 has Jobab and not Hobab, thus we may conclude that the Hobab descended from Jethro/Raguel was a Midianite and unrelated to this Jobab the Kenite whose daughter Moses errantly wed. 

The Kenites had become absorbed into the Canaanite nations at an early time, and Esau-Edom had become absorbed partially into the Canaanites, thus all three tribal groups carried some of Cain’s DNA. It is also likely that many of the Judaean elders were Canaanites themselves (Zechariah 14.21, Susanna 1.56) and so it’s possible all three cursed lineages had direct descendants in the 1st century Judaean populace, particularly among scribes and Pharisees. Thus Christ rightly accuses their brood of shedding the blood of Abel and Zacharias, and of all the righteous priests of God.

In John 8.38-44 Christ tells this race in no uncertain terms that they are descended from the Devil and that their father was “a murderer from the beginning”. This phrase of course can only describe Cain.

After Jesus states this these Judaeans are immediately defensive saying “we are not born of fornication”. This indicates that they well knew that he was referring to their ancestry. He continues to affirm his accusation by saying that their father is the father of lies and a murderer from the beginning. These Judaean’s denial of their bastardized heritage in verse 41 is a reference to Malachi 2 where we find that Judah has married the daughter of a strange God.

“10Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why then doth every one of us despise his brother, violating the covenant of our fathers? 

11Juda hath transgressed, and abomination hath been committed in Israel, and in Jerusalem: for Juda hath profaned the holiness of the Lord, which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 

12The Lord will cut off the man that hath done this, both the master, and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering to the Lord of hosts.”
-Malachi 2

This of course refers to the mingling of the sons of Judah with the daughters of Canaan who indeed descended in part from the devil’s brood. Thus Jesus rightly tells them they do the deeds of their father the devil. 

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-satanic-origins-of-the-edomite-jews/

I believe it is clear in light of this evidence, that the serpent was of Satan’s brood, and that the tree Eve ate of was that brood who had known both good (pure Angelic glory) and evil (rebellion from God and the corruption of races) as described in Genesis 6, Jude and all of the extant Enoch literature. I hope that it is also clear to my readers that when Eve ate of the tree she brought sin into the world through this act of fornication and the offspring thereof: Cain and his Kenite progeny.

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races

 

Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started