Deuteronomy 23.7 and the Reuelite-Edomites

‘Meeting Between Esau and Jacob’ -Raffaellino Bottalla

There is a certain verse from the Pentateuch which I have been asked about on several occasions, and so I have decided to write a commentary of my own which I hope will clear up any confusion about this topic. Here I will depart from the views of two scholars who I respect very much and cite quite often: Clifton Emahiser and William Finck.

If you have not read their work then you certainly should start reading it. My purpose here is not to attack their teachings concerning this topic; rather it is merely to offer an alternative perspective which I hope my readers will consider. If you have not heard what Emahiser and Finck have to say about this passage then you may want to have a look at the following works.

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/book/export/html/27

https://archive.christogenea.org/content/deuteronomy-237-christogenos-01-30-09

Emahiser and Finck make the case that Deuteronomy 23.7 contains a scribal error confusing Arammiy (H761) and Edomiy (H130) due to the similarity of the dalet and resh in Hebrew. I however believe that our interpretations of Scripture ought to rely on the assumption of the inerrancy of the extant texts of our Scriptures and I do not believe any interpretation of Scripture ought to rely on a revision of the text.

The Hebrew, Greek and Latin text of Deuteronomy 23.7 all contain the specific word concerned (Ιδουμαίον and Idumeum in the Greek and Latin respectively). Furthermore the Edomites are refered to as brethren of the Israelites on several other occasions (Numbers 20.14, Deuteronomy 2.4, Amos 1.11, Obadiah 1.10) and so I will offer my interpretation based on the premise that Deuteronomy 23.7 rightly contains an instance of Edomiy. In Deuteronomy 23.7 we read that an Edomite is not to be abhorred:

“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite, because he is thy brother; thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land.”
-Deuteronomy 23.7

This passage confuses many since the prophets are replete with condemnations of Edom. Ostensibly God himself came to abhor these Edomites (Isaiah 34, Malachi 1.2-4, Romans 9.13, Obadiah, Ezekiel 35, 25.13-14, Joel 3.19 et al.). One Scripture even tells us it was a blessed thing for the Israelites to slay the children of the Edomites in the time of David (Psalm 137.9). If God himself despises the Edomites then why was Israel commanded not to abhor an Edomite in the time of Moses?

In the second part of Deuteronomy 23.7 we are also told “thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian” 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.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/05/01/the-noahite-nations-the-hamites/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

It can be demonstrated that Edom suffered a similar fate, as Esau’s offspring all came to be mixed with the cursed nations. Even the first generation of Edomites consisted largely of Canaanite halfbreeds and Esau’s miscegenation was a source of great grief to his parents:

“34And Esau was forty years old; and he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beoch the Chettite, and Basemath, daughter of Helon the Chettite. 35And they were provoking to Isaac and Rebecca.”
-Genesis 26

Rebecca was so distraught by Esau’s choice of wives that she saw no worth in her life if Jacob were to marry racial aliens like his brother:

“46And Rebecca said to Isaac, I am weary of my life, because of the daughters of the sons of Chet; if Jacob shall take a wife of the daughters of this land, wherefore should I live?”
-Genesis 27

At the behest of his father Jacob went to the house of his uncle Laban (meaning “White”, Strong’s and Gesenius’ s.v.) to find his wives Rachel and Leah who would bear children of the promise.

“1And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, saying: Take not a wife of the stock of Chanaan: 2But go, and take a journey to Mesopotamia of Syria, to the house of Bathuel, thy mother’s father, and take thee a wife thence of the daughters of Laban, thy uncle. 3And God almighty bless thee, and make thee to increase and multiply thee: that thou mayst be a multitude of people. 4And give the blessings of Abraham to thee, and to thy seed after thee: that thou mayst possess the land of thy sojournment, which he promised to thy grandfather. 5And when Isaac had sent him away, he took his journey and went to Mesopotamia of Syria, to Laban, the son of Bathuel, the Syrian, brother to Rebecca, his mother.”
-Genesis 28

Many claim that intermarriage between diverse peoples was only forbidden in the Bible on purely religious grounds. The example of Jacob’s imperative to marry a woman of his mother’s tribe refutes this. Laban’s family was actually pagan (Genesis 31.19-35) as their Hebrew forebears were before the time of Abraham (Joshua 24.2, 15). If Jacob’s parent’s only concern was for their son’s religious fidelity they would not have sent Jacob to take a pagan wife. If race was of no concern then Jacob may just as well have married Canaanites like his brother. Ostensibly their concern was for their racial posterity.

Esau had forfeit his birthright and scorned his heritage, but he hoped that he might find redemption in his parent’s eyes by taking a wife of the Ishmaelites (Genesis 28.6-9), a people descended from Abraham and his Egyptian concubine Hagar. In Genesis 28.9 Esau’s Ishmaelite wife is named as Mahalath, but in Genesis 36.3 she is named as Bashemath, the same name as Esau’s Hethite wife mentioned at Genesis 26.34.

Perhaps both women were originally named Bashemath and Esau changed his Ishmaelite wife’s name to Mahalath so as not to have two wives of the same name. Perhaps Esau simply had two Ishmaelite wives, one of whom happened to share a name with his Hittite wife. In any case, it is apparent that Esau had fully Adamic offspring by one of his wives.

I would posit that the Edomite lineage descended from Esau and Mahalath must be the source of the Edomite who is the object of Deuteronomy 23.7. By law a mongrel is excluded from the congregation of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23.2) and so an Edomite line from Esau by a Canaanite woman is precluded from being the object of Deuteronomy 23.7.

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation and Multiculturalism’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation-and-multiculturalism/

Now one might wonder why the Law would not be more specific in regards to which Edomite tribes were acceptable for intermarriage. I would point out however, that Egypt is mentioned in the very same verse, and Egypt was by this time a nation which was largely racially compromised, much like Edom. The Israelites must have been expected to scrutinize the lineage of any Edomite or Egyptian drawn to them to become a proselyte and potentially to exclude them according to Deuteronomy 23.2.

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

It is apparent elsewhere in the Pentateuch that the Israelites were expected to be able to distinguish alien races from the the other Adamic peoples. In Exodus chapter 12 we read “This is the law of the passover: no stranger [allogenes, Strong’s G241 meaning literally “of another race” i.e. a non-Adamite] shall eat of it.” (vs. 43) A little further on we read “if any proselyte shall come to you to keep the passover to the Lord, thou shalt circumcise every male of him … he shall be even as the original inhabitant of the land” (vs. 48).

These laws offer no further instruction as to how one can distinguish between the licit proselyte and the illicit alien. Ostensibly the Israelites were expected to scrutinize the racial purity of potential converts judging them by their works, countenance and/or genealogical records and this would naturally apply to Edomite and Egyptian proselytes who are mentioned at Deuteronomy 23.7.

In Genesis 36.3-13 we can trace the sons of Esau by Mahalath/Bashemath through Reuel (“friend of God”, Strong’s and Gesenius’ s.v. Reuwel) down to Zerah, mentioned as an early Edomite duke in vs. 17. Interestingly the line of Esau by his Ishmaelite wife through Zerah is mentioned again in one other place, only found in the ancient Septuagint. There his name is rendered into Greek as Ζαρέ, the same rendering used in Genesis 36:

“17And Job died, an old man and full of days: and it is written that he will rise again with those whom the Lord raises up. This man is described in the Syriac book as living in the land of Ausis, on the borders of Idumea and Arabia: and his name before was Jobab; and having taken an Arabian wife, he begot a son whose name was Ennon. And he himself was the son of his father Zare, one of the sons of Esau, and of his mother Bosorrha, so that he was the fifth from Abraam. …”
-Job 42 (LXX)

Interestingly Yahweh was worshiped in ancient Edom and he is called “Yahweh of Teman” (Teman is an ancient Edomite city) in an inscription at Kuntillet Ajrud (Anthony Bonanno, Archaeology and fertility cult in the ancient Mediterranean, University of Malta pp. 238 ff.).

Ostensibly these prestigious Adamic Edomite lineages came to be mingled with the corrupted offspring of their father or other cursed tribes, just as the Egyptians mentioned alongside them in Deuteronomy 23.7 also had. God’s promises to tribes depend upon the legitimacy of their seed, and the corrupted seed of Esau surely forsook any favour they once found with God and Israel.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/the-satanic-origins-of-the-kenite-canaanite-and-edomite-jews/

Caucasian Ancient Mizraim

There is widespread confusion in the world today concerning the racial character of the ancient Egyptians. Largely this is due to the rise of Negrocentric revisionism in recent decades as African Americans desperately seek a cultural identity worthy of pride. There is much to be said of this topic, and interested readers might care to view the following articles.

‘Mizraim, Ludim, Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim and Pathrusim’
https://facebook.com/SloanV.Sutherland/photos/a.296742454262923/587525531851279/?type=3

‘Refuting “Black Hebrew Israelites”‘
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/04/10/refuting-black-hebrew-israelites-2/

This album hosts a collection of ancient Egyptian art which depicts the ancient Egyptians. Clearly the Egypt of Mizraim was of Caucasoid stock, generally of the Mediterranean variety. This is affirmed by genetic evidence which shows that the ancient Egyptians were most closely related to ancient Near Eastern populations.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170530115141.htm

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://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatCo…815694S/abstract

A limestone statue of Nofret, the mastaba of Prince Rahotep, Egypt.
A mural of the wife and mother of Userhat, the tomb of Userhat, Egypt.
A mural of Nefertari (L) and Isis, the tomb of Nefertari, Egypt.
The coffin of Amenhotep I, Thebes, Egypt.
The Sitting Scribe, Saqqara, Egypt.
The coffin of Amenemope, Gurna, Egypt.
A mural of Tiye and a Amenhotep III, the tomb of Ameneminit, Egypt.
The cartonnage mask of Shepenmut, Thebes, Egypt.
A mural of Nefertiabet, Giza, Egypt.
The coffin of Irthorru, Meir, Egypt.
A statue of Wepwawetemhat, Asyut, Egypt.
A mural depicting musicians, the tomb of Rekhmire, Thebes, Egypt.
A limestone statue of Rahotep, the mastaba of Prince Rahotep, Egypt.
A limestone bust of Nefertiti, Amarna, Egypt.
A detail from the coffin of Djehutynakht, Deir el-Bersha, Egypt.
The coffin of Tenatcharoe, Saqqara, Egypt.
A satue of Nenkheftka, Deshasha, Egypt.
A statue of Hemiunu, Giza, Egypt.
A mural of an Egyptian woman, Deir el-Medina, Egypt.
The Arrhenius sarcophagus, Deir el-Bahri, Egypt.

It can be demonstrated that the Biblical Casluhim, Caphtorim and Philistines (descendants of Mizraim, the Egyptian patriarch) are one and the same people as the Minoans of Crete. Demonstrably these Philistines were Caucasoid Mediterranean stock very similar to their southerly Egyptian cousins.

‘Philistim and Caphtorim’
https://facebook.com/SloanV.Sutherland/photos/a.296742454262923/587525715184594/?type=3

Genetic samples extracted from Philistine remains at Ashkelon have now proven that the Philistines indeed came to Canaan from Southern Europe.

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

Many modern Greeks have a high degree of genetic continuity with the ancient Cretans/Philistines.

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

The Prince of Lillies fresco, Knossos, Crete.
La Parisienne fresco, Knossos, Crete.
The cupbearers fresco, Knossos, Crete.
The ladies in blue fresco, Knossos, Crete.
The dancing woman fresco, Knossos, Crete.
The procession fresco, Knossos, Crete.
The saffron gatherers fresco, Akrotiri, Santorini.
The bull leaping fresco, Knossos, Crete.
The saffron goddess fresco, Akrotiri, Santorini.

White Ancient Aram

The Syrians were descendants of Aram, the brother of Arphaxad, the forebear of the Hebrews. The ancient Syrians left behind many funerary reliefs depicting themselves. These clearly display the Europoid features of the offspring of Aram, cousins of the ancient Israelites. The tomb of Rekhmire in Thebes (Theban Tomb TT100) contains murals depicting red haired Syrian tribute bearers. In the Anatolian city of Edessa some funerary mosaics have been discovered which depict pale and sometimes grey-eyed Aramaeans.

‘Physical Descriptions 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 House of the Pharoahs and the Ancient Hebrews

Ossipumphnoferu.

Three passages in the Pentateuch indicate that the Israelites were physically similar to the Egyptian nobility that ruled when the Israelites dwelt there and could not be easily distinguished from them (Genesis 42.8, 50.1-11, Exodus 2.19). Considering the racially tumultuous history of Egypt, if we want to make use of these clues, it is necessary that we establish when the Israelites lived in Egypt and what race ruled Egypt at that time.

Yuya.

Both the records of Flavius Josephus and an honest study of the chronology of the period attest to us that an 18th Dynasty pharaoh named Thutmose (called Tethmosis by Josephus, Against Apion 1.15) was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Another four pharaohs bearing this name were all related.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/paul%E2%80%99s-epistle-hebrews-part-14-faith-history

Hatshepsut.

Hatshepsut was the fifth of the Thutmosid Dynasty, and it is probably Hatshepsut who drew Moses out of the water, perhaps giving him a form of her family name. The sixth and eighth pharaohs of the dynasty were Thutmose III and IV. The death of the last of the Thutmosids, who perished before he became pharaoh, led to the ascension of his brother Akhenaten.

Ramesses II. He was not an 18th dynasty pharaoh, but early 19th. He exhibits the same racial characteristics as his 18th dynasty predecessors. Some scholars (wrongly) date the exodus to the Ramesside period.

It was during the reign of Akhenaten that the Amarna Letters were written. As I have demonstrated in this essay, the Amarna letters document the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. While his Canaanite subjects begged Akhenaten to send soldiers to halt the Hebrew’s conquest, Akhenaten would not hear their pleas, probably because the Exodus was fresh in his people’s memory.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’ https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

Tjuyu.

Here I have gathered some images of 18th dynasty mummies such as Yuya, Tjuyu, Thutmose IV and Ossipumphnoferu as well as the 19th dynasty pharaoh Ramesses II and they are unquestionably Caucasoid with Nordid features and fair blonde, red or sandy brown hair. If Israelites such as Moses and Joseph were blending in among their contemporary Egyptian nobility then they must have had similar phenotypes.

Amenhotep II.

Of course these Nordoid Egyptians are not the original stock of Mizraim. The Hamitic stock of Egypt was certainly of the Mediterranean variety which is clear from the art of ancient Egypt, the mummified remains of the Egyptians and the racial types which dominate there today, altered somewhat as they are.

‘White Ancient Egypt’ https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/05/13/white-ancient-egypt/

Tiye.

These Nordoid Egyptian aristocrats of the 19th and 18th dynasties must be of Asiatic Shemitic extraction, most probably connected to the migrations of Asiatic chariot warriors such as the Hyksos from the Levant.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

‘Physical Descriptions 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/

Thutmose IV.

The Noahite Nations: the Hamites

‘Noah Damning Ham’
-Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov

The name Ham (H2525) means “hot” or “warm” (Gesenius’ and Strongs’ s.v.) 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 reasonably 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/

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

While many of the Hamitic tribes became mingled with aboriginal races at an early time, it can be demonstrated that the Hamitic nations all originated as Caucasoid stock. Even today their descendants all remain taxonomically Caucasoid and can be found among the peoples of North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Arabia, Syria, the Levant, Anatolia and Greece.

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 is certainly the Tigris while the river Perath is the Euphrates (see Strong’s and Gesenius’ entries for H2313 and H6578). Certainly the geography of Genesis 2 indicates that the Cush of Genesis 2.13 is in Asia and probably it is that domain in Mesopotamia once ruled by Nimrod the Cushite (Genesis 10.8-12).

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). Evidently there were two places known as Cush/Ethiopia in both Scripture and ancient Greek literature.

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. It is apparent here that “Ethiopian” is used here as a loose denonym for a people utterly dissimilar to the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus had described previously.

“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 3.8.1-3

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.”

In Isaiah 20 we read “thus shall the king of the Assyrians lead the captivity of Egypt and the Ethiopians, young men and old, naked and barefoot, having the shame of Egypt exposed.” (vs. 4) This prophecy was surely fulfilled when Esarhaddon of Assyria took the Egyptians and Ethiopians captive (Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, The University of Chicago Press vol. 2 secs. 557ff.). These deportations must be the source of these White Ethiopians as well as the Libyan-Egyptians, also seemingly uprooted from their original homelands, presumably in Egypt. Undoubtedly these deportations contributed greatly to the decline of genuine Cushite blood in Ethiopia.

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 pp. 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. p. 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. Unlike the Congoid, the Aethiopid has a prominent nasal spine and a high-rooted nose.

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, Macmillan 9.8

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

I have collected several photos of Aethiopid examples which my readers may care to peruse. These are contrasted with the most comparable Congoid subtypes I could find. It should be plain to the eye that the Aethiopids have phenotypes which are clearly distinct from those of the Congoid race.

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 East 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

The Nubians themselves appear to be a mixed population of Cushites and aboriginal Nilotes. The single most frequent paternal haplogroup among the Nubians is the West Asian Caucasoid haplogroup J (44%) followed by the North African haplogroup E1b1b (23%). This indicates substantial Caucasoid gene flow from the Cushite males into a Nilotic female gene pool. In the case of the Nubians it is evident that the Nilotic Congoid phenotype and Nilo-Saharan language prevailed in contrast to the Caucasoid Afro-Asiatic speaking Ethiopians and Somalis etc.

https://www.docdroid.net/e90MDsD/hassan2008-pdf

There is some confusion about the meaning of the Hebrew word Kuwsh. Brown-Driver-Briggs offers the definition “black” for Kuwsh, yet this definition appears in no earlier sources and appears to be based on the modern (often derogatory) Jewish usage of Kuwsh rather than any authentic ancient Hebrew definition. Kuwsh and related words are never used to refer to colours in the Scriptures and no internal Biblical evidence supports the definition of Kuwsh as “black”.

We shall now look to some older Hebrew lexicons to scrutinize this modern Jewish definition for Kuwsh. Gesenius never gives an etymology for Kuwsh and only says it refered to a land “inhabited by black men”. Strong’s likewise offers no etymology for Kuwsh but says it is “Probably of foreign origin” and like Gesenius he offers no meaning aside from a proper name. The only sound conclusion is that Kuwsh has no definite meaning aside from a personal name, ethnonym or toponym.

Strong’s explains the word Aethiop (Strong’s G128) as deriving from “aitho (to scorch) and ops (the face, from optanomai)” and referring to “an Aethiopian”. Liddell and Scott define it as “burnt face” and Dodson defines it as “an Ethiopian, Abyssinian”. It has been imagined that this term originated in reference to the dark face of the Congoid which might be perceived as appearing to be burnt, however this may just as easily describe the scorched face of a Caucasian under the Northeast African sun. Had the Greeks desired to name Ethiopia for a naturally black face they ought to have used any of the Greek words commonly used to refer to dark skin such as melas, melos, kelainos or phaios.

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.

‘Caucasian Ancient Mizraim’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/05/13/white-ancient-egypt/

‘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/

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.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

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 Sabeans were well known for their sculptures, particularly in alabaster, many of which survive to this day. These Sabean alabaster figures display distinctive Caucasoid features such as narrow high-rooted noses, orthognathism and long and narrow faces and display none of the features which distinguish the Congoid race. These ancient Sabeans are exemplary representations of the stock of Cush where it was not exposed to non-Adamic Niger-Congo  and Nilo-Saharan admixture.

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

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 saying “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 who Strabo places 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 is Egypt. 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 is describing 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 borderlands] 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, in many cases none. The only representions of Congoids in ancient Egyptian art depict slaves and foreigners.

‘Caucasian Ancient Mizraim’ https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/05/13/white-ancient-egypt/

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

https://christogenea.org/gallery/white-ancient-egypt-part-2

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 and Kemet certainly refers to the black soil of the Nile Delta and not the skin colour of the inhabitants. The Nile floods enriched the land with rich black soil which distinguished the fertile Kemet (“black land”) from the barren deshret (“red land”) beyond the reach of the waters of the Nile (Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, Psychology Press p. 21).

Raymond Faulkner translates kmt into “Egyptians” (Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford: Griffith Institute p. 286) and Alan Gardiner translates it as “the Black Land, Egypt” (Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs (3rd ed.), Griffith Institute, Oxford).

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 were genetically akin to Southern European and Anatolian populations and 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://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatCo…815694S/abstract

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170530115141.htm

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 Φαθωρής (Ezekiel 29.14, 30.14)/Παθούρης (Isaiah 11.11, Jeremiah 44.1, 44.15)/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” (Jeremiah 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 archaeological 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.).

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 country of 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 Berbers descend from the ancient Libyans, a clear remnant of a once White North West Africa. The medieval Moors who rivaled the powers of Southern and Western Europe were mainly of Berber extraction, especially the aristocracy, and it can be demonstrated that they were predominantly Europoid by race.

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/

That the modern Jews descend largely from the ancient Canaanites is now affirmed by genetic data which shows that both Jews and Arabs (particularly Levantine Arabs) share a large portion of Canaanite ancestry.

https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/2020/05/dna-from-biblical-canaanites-lives-modern-arabs-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 followed by Jews and Arabs broadly.

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).

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 in Genesis 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 Ḫu-ú-ia is attested in Akkadian. Most probably Hivite/Chivviy is patronymic from the Hurrian personal name Ḫu-ú-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.

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 p. 270). It is thus evident that the Hurrians were certainly present in Canaan proper in the time of Joshua. 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 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, academia.edu). 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.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

The Hurro-Urartian civilization of Urartu (an Akkadian name which corresponds to the Biblical Ararat) was North beyond the domain of Canaan proper in the Armenian Highlands. This is supported by the long-standing identification of Ararat with a district of Armenia (Jeremiah 51.27, Gesenius’, Brown-Driver-Briggs and Strong’s s.v. et al.). The Urartians remain a substantial ancestral element of the Armenians.

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 Dispersions of Israel: the Danaans and Dorians

The Lion Hunt Mosaic, Pella, Greece.

It has often been taken for granted that the Hellenic peoples of the Aegean, without any substantial exception, descended from the Japhethic patriarch Javan (Genesis 10.2). Indeed, Javan seems to have sired many of the early Greeks, particularly the Ionians, but there remain many unanswered questions about Greek ethnogenesis as it relates to Biblical history. A long time has elapsed since the period in which Genesis 10 is set and the solidification of Classical or even Archaic Greek culture, and undoubtedly many migrations have occured in that time.

When we study the names of the sons of Javan in Genesis 10 and the records of their descendants in history it is evident that they are all associated with the Ionian Greeks and certain islands and coasts about the Mediterranean basin such as Rhodes, Cyprus and Tarshish. There is no evidence of any connection to other prominent Greek groups such as the Danaans/Achaeans or Dorians, nor to other early Aegean peoples such as the Minoans and Pelasgians.

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

There are hints in the Scriptures that the Philistines are to be associated with Crete, but it was not until more recent advances in archaeology and genetics that it became certain that the pre-Hellenic Minoan civilization of the Aegean was that of the Biblical Casluhim, Caphtorim and Philistines. These discoveries go to show that the mysteries of Greek ethnogenesis in relation to the Biblical narrative are still unraveling in the modern day.

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

The Danaans, by all Classical accounts, had come to Greece from Egypt with the eponymous patriarch Danaus. Here we shall examine two accounts recorded by Diodorus Siculus in his Library of History. First let’s look at the account which Diodorus relates to us from Hecataeus of Abdera, a Greek historian of the 4th century BC:

“… the aliens were driven from the country, and the most outstanding and active among them banded together and, as some say, were cast ashore in Greece and certain other regions; their leaders were notable men, chief among them being Danaus and Cadmus. But the greater number were driven into what is now called Judea … The colony was headed by a man called Moses, outstanding both for his wisdom and for his courage.”
-Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 40.3.2

It is evident here that Hecataeus is relating a version of the Exodus from an Egyptian perspective. Undoubtedly political and ethnic biases taint this account of the Exodus, Hecataeus reporting of what he learned in Egypt. Nonetheless, he was clearly aware of the events that took place around the time that the Hebrews departed from Egypt and he, a Greek, associated the eminent Greek patriarchs Danaus and Cadmus with the Hebrews who fled Egypt under Moses. Diodorus also mentions Danaus again in connection with the Israelite migration out of Egypt:

“They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city of Greece, Argos, and that the nation of the Colchi in Pontus and that of the Judeans, which lies between Arabia and Syria, were founded as colonies by certain emigrants from their country 3. And this is the reason why it is a long-established institution among these two peoples to circumcise their male children, the custom having been brought over from Egypt.”
-Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 1.28.1

This event was parodied in later Classical Greek writings as the retreat of the “daughters of Danaus” from the “sons of Aegyptus”. One such example is the play Suppliant Maidens by Aeschylus. Cadmus is called “the Phoenician” throughout Classical Greek literature and was regarded as the founder of Thebes (John B. Alden, The Greek Anthology pp. 160-162). Cadmus is said to have been the grandfather of Dionysus (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 4.2.1, 4.2.2-3 et al.), and to have come from the city of Thebes in Egypt (ibid. 1.23.4).

There is no scholarly consensus as to the etymology of the name Cadmus, but the most likely explanation is that is comes from the Semitic triliteral root *qadm- meaning “East”, with the addition of the Greek masculine name ending -os giving the meaning “man of the East”. This certainly is suitable to a figure who came to Greece from the East from either Egypt or Canaan. Herodotus credits the Phoenician colonists who came with Cadmus with introducing the art of writing to the Ionians who had preceded them into Greece:

“The Phoenicians who came with Cadmus … introduced into Greece, after their settlement in the country, a number of accomplishments, of which the most important was writing, an art till then, I think, unknown to the Greeks. At first they used the same characters as all the other Phoenicians, but as time went on, and they changed their language, they also changed the shape of their letters. At that period most of the Greeks in the neighborhood were Ionians; they were taught these letters by the Phoenicians and adopted them, with a few alterations, for their own use, continuing to refer to them as the Phoenician characters—as was only right, as the Phoenicians had introduced them.”
-Herodotus, The Histories 5.58

It can be demonstrated that the Phoenicians of the maritime golden age of Phoenicia were not all Canaanites by race as commonly supposed, but that Phoenicia was at that time ruled and populated mainly by Israelites. Indeed, no Canaanites departed from Egypt with Moses, Danaus or Cadmus, but Israelites certainly had. The seafaring habits of the tribe of Dan are certainly in line with those of the Phoenicians (Judges 5.17) and Scripture tells us that the tribe of Dan was sailing the Mediterranean alongside the Ionian Greeks (Ezekiel 27.19) so we should not be at all surprised to see Phoenician colonists with Cadmus introducing these Ionians to the art of letters.

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

That the Greek alphabet derives from the Phoenician is now known to be a matter of fact (Roger D. Woodward, A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language, Wiley-Blackwell) and the Phoenician script itself is known to have derived ultimately from the Proto-Sinaitic or “Proto-Canaanite” alphabet which derives from Egyptian hieroglyphs (Elizabeth J. Himelfarb, First Alphabet Found in Egypt, Archaeology 53, Issue 1: 21).

It can be demonstrated through an analysis of ancient Egyptian correspondence with their Canaanite chieftain subjects that the Israelites did indeed depart Egypt and conquer Canaan as described in the books of Exodus and Joshua. It must be these Hebrews departing Egypt who introduced the Proto-Sinaitic and Phoenician alphabets to Greece, Canaan and nearby regions usurping the cuneiform scripts originally used by the Canaanites.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’ 
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

During the Greek Dark Ages and the Archaic Greek period there were complex linguistic relationships established between Northwest Semitic and Hellenic languages and the former had a very profound influence on the latter (Cyril Aslanov, Northwest Semitic Structural Influences on Archaic Greek: a Reassessment, academia.edu). Certainly these must have formed as the Israelites settled in the developing Hellenic world.

So-called Mycenaean artifacts and burials have been unearthed in Palestine, though the Jewish archaeologists privileged to study them rarely admit the connection to the Hellenic ties of the Danites. One such site is at Tel Dan (Dan II; A Chronicle of the Excavations and the Late Bronze Age “Mycenaean” Tomb, academia.edu). Another notable site host to so-called Mycenaean artifacts is Tel Dor (Biblical Archaeology Review, July-August 2001 p. 17 and November-December, 2002, Gorgon Excavated at Dor p. 50) a city of Manasseh. In light of the clear connections between ancient Israel and Greece, we ought to further consider the possibility of a relationship between Tel Dor and the Dorians of Greece.

The earliest mention of the Dorians is found in Homer’s Odyssey book 19 where we read in a description of Crete: “The Dorians, plumed amid the files of war, Her foodful glebe with fierce Achaians share”. Ostensibly Crete was a perfect staging area for an invasion by sea, and the Dorians seized upon this to conquer much of the Aegean, forcing the Danaans and others inland. That the Dorians had emigrated to Crete from Palestine is indicated in several ancient sources. As we saw in Diodorus Siculus’ Library of History, the Hebrews leaving Egypt with Danaus were said to have settled Argos; not a city of the Danaans, but of the Dorians. Here the ancient Judaean historian Flavius Josephus records a letter written by a Lacedemonian (Spartan) king to the high preist at Jerusalem:

“Areus, King of the Lacedemonians, To Onias, Sendeth Greeting. We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered, that both the Judeans and the Lacedemonians are of one stock; and are derived from the kindred of Abraham: It is but just therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please.”
-Josephus, Antiquities of the Judaeans 12.4.10

The reply to this letter was long delayed due to the Maccabean wars and other problems amongst the Judaeans, but it is recorded in Josephus’ Antiquities 13.5.8 as well as in the deuterocanonical book 1 Maccabees in the twelfth chapter:

“Jonathan the high priest, and the elders of the nation, and the priests, and the other people of the Judaeans, unto the Lacedemonians their brethren send greeting: There were letters sent in times past unto Onias the high priest from Darius, who reigned then among you, to signify that ye are our brethren, as the copy here underwritten doth specify. … we also, albeit we need none of these things, for that we have the holy books of scripture in our hands to comfort us, have nevertheless attempted to send unto you for the renewing of brotherhood and friendship … We commanded them also to go unto you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning the renewing of our brotherhood. … And this is the copy of the letters which Oniares sent. Areus king of the Lacedemonians to Onias the high priest, greeting: It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Judaeans are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham …”
-1 Maccabees 12.6-21

Egyptian records tell of a confederacy of tribes that attacked Egypt and other points in the Eastern Mediterranean during the Late Bronze Age Collapse. Among the names of these peoples are two which are connected with Greece: Denyen and Ekwesh. The Denyen have variously been identified as the Danaans (Jorrit M. Kelder, The Egyptian Interest in Mycenaean Greece, Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux p. 126), the Israelite tribe of Dan (ibid.) and the Dorian Greeks (Eckhard Siemer, Der Friedensvertrag von 1258 v. Chr. und die Ehe der Naptera, Der hethitisch- mykenische Zinnhandel in Europa und der Untergang ihrer Reiche (1430 – 1130 BC) sowie, Vincent von Beauvais De plumbo p. 228). Whether or not the Denyen of Egyptian records are Danaans or Dorians, they were surely Israelites.

The identification of the Denyen as Israelites is supported by the fact that Egyptian records mention them alongside the Peleset (the Biblical Philistines) indicating their proximity (Edward Hincks, An Attempt to Ascertain the Number, Names, and Powers, of the Letters of the Hieroglyphic, or Ancient Egyptian Alphabet; Grounded on the Establishment of a New Principle in the Use of Phonetic Characters, The Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy 21 (21): 176, William Osburn, Ancient Egypt, Her Testimony to the Truth of the Bible, Samuel Bagster and Sons p. 107).

The Ekwesh have been identified with the Achaeans/Danaans (Robert Drews, The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe of ca. 1200 B.C., Princeton University Press pp. 49, 54, Jorrit M. Kelder, The Egyptian Interest in Mycenaean Greece, Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux p. 126). Interestingly we find on the Great Karnak Inscription that the Ekwesh were circumcised (Manuel Robbins, Collapse of the Bronze Age: the story of Greece, Troy, Israel, Egypt, and the peoples of the sea, Authors Choice Press p. 158).

This ought to be compared to the report by Diodorus Siculus that circumcision was brought to Judaea by the Israelites “who set forth with Danaus” from Egypt (Library of History 1.28.1). There Diodorus only states that the Colchians and Judaeans practiced circumcision, this practice evidently having fallen out of favour among the Achaeans by his time, but apparently it had been known to them in the Late Bronze Age.

The ancient Judaeans were very similar in appearance to their contemporary Greeks as we should expect of kindred peoples. A famous ancient mosaic from the Huqoq synagogue in Palestine depicts Judaeans right alongside Greeks and they are both portrayed just the same with fair skin, straight noses and light hair.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/alexander-the-great-huqoq/

‘Physical Descriptions 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/

Flavius Josephus informs us that the Greeks and Judaeans 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

It ought to be noted here that the ancient Israelite practice of circumcision differed greatly from the later Jewish custom widely practiced in the Jewish, Islamic and American worlds today. Originally the practice only involved removal of any extra foreskin protruding beyond the glans which allowed for the restoration of the remaining foreskin. This is how the Judaeans “hid the circumcision of their genitals” when naked as Josephus describes (R. G. Hall, Epispasm: circumcision in reverse, Bible Review: 52-7).

Later on around 140 AD the Jews added another stage where the foreskin was cut further back, to the ridge behind the glans. The inner mucosal tissue was removed by use of a sharp finger nail or tool, including the excision and removal of the frenulum. Later during the Talmudic period (500-625 AD) a third step began to be practiced in which the Jew circumcising the child would suck the blood from the circumcision wound with his mouth; something expressly forbidden by God’s laws (Leviticus 17.10, 14, Acts 15.20, 29, James E. Peron, Circumcision: Then and Now, Many Blessings vol. 3 pp. 41-42).

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

Samson the Danite is famous for his long locks of hair (Judges 16.13, 19) of which he had seven. Strong’s defines Samson’s locks (machalapha, H4253) as “a ringlet of hair (as gliding over each other) — lock.” Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as “braid, lock, plait”. Samson most probably wore his hair in seven braids, plaits or locks.

Such locks were popular among the Greeks in ancient times (Rick Steves, Athens and the Peloponnese, Avalon Travel p. 165, Ian Jenkins, Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: The Case for Cypriot Origin, American Journal of Archaeology vol. 105 pp. 168–175, Richard Hook, The Spartan Army, Osprey Publishing p. 24).

A similar hairstyle is also seen in the famous Akrotiri Boxer Frescoe of Santorini Greece where it is worn by Minoan youths. The Minoans of course were one and the same stock as the Biblical Philistines; neighbours of the Danites and a people the Israelites extensively interacted with. Samson the Danite had a Philistine wife (Judges 14).

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

Though they had adopted many of the customs of the Japhetic Ionians and Hamitic Minoans as well as the pagan religions of these tribes, the Israelites who settled in the Aegean surely maintained many of their Hebrew customs and beliefs. As we have seen, the Ekwesh/Achaeans were still practicing circumcision in the Late Bronze Age, and even in the time of Strabo (63 BC-23 AD) some Greeks (such as those in the temple-city of Comana in Pontus) considered swine to be unclean (Strabo, Geography 12.8.9). Many examples of Hebraisms have been found in Classical Greek literature, and certainly this is no mere coincidence.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/greek-culture-hebrew-yahwehs-covenant-people-06-12-10

https://christogenea.org/references/greek-culture-hebrew

That the Dorian Greeks were Israelites was certainly known to St. Paul. Here he tells the Dorian Greeks of Corinth that their fathers had all passed through the Red Sea with Moses in the Exodus. St. Paul was not speaking in an unexplained allegory here; rather he was telling his audience at Corinth that they descended from the Israelites of the Exodus:

“1 Now I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all had passed through the sea. 2 And all up to Moses had immersed themselves in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all had eaten the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of an attending spiritual rock, and that rock was Christ.”
-1 Corinthians 10

St. Paul again indicates that the Corinthians are flesh and blood descendants of Israel where he warns them of the evils of idolatry:

“18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”
-1 Corinthians 10

These are two particularly obvious references to the Israelite heritage of the Greek peoples the Apostles ministered to, but there are many more to be found when due consideration is given regarding the Biblical and historical context of the epistles of Paul. Certainly St. Paul was ministering first and foremost to flesh and blood Israelites in accordance with the promises of the prophets and the mandates of Christ.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/epistles-of-paul

‘The New Covenant with Israel’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/the-new-covenant-with-israel/


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 (Acts 10, 15.7). 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).

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/book-acts-chapter-8-christogenea-internet-radio-07-05-2013

The Sabeans were well known for their sculptures, particularly in alabaster, many of which survive to this day. These Sabean alabaster figures display distinctive Caucasoid features such as narrow high-rooted noses, orthognathism and long and narrow faces and display none of the features which distinguish the Congoid race. These ancient Sabeans are exemplary representations of the stock of Cush where it was not exposed to non-Adamic Niger-Congo  and Nilo-Saharan admixture.


‘Cush, Seba, Havilah, Sabtah, Raamah, Sabtechah, Sheba and Dedan’
https://facebook.com/SloanV.Sutherland/photos/a.296742454262923/587525621851270/?type=3

Zipporah was a Midianite from the Ethiopia of Asia (Genesis 2.10-14, 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). Cushite is only applied to Zipporah at Numbers 12.1 as denonym. 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/

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.”

In Isaiah 20 we read “thus shall the king of the Assyrians lead the captivity of Egypt and the Ethiopians, young men and old, naked and barefoot, having the shame of Egypt exposed.” (vs. 4) This prophecy was surely fulfilled when Esarhaddon of Assyria took the Egyptians and Ethiopians captive (Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, The University of Chicago Press vol. 2 secs. 557ff.).

These deportations must be the source of these White Ethiopians as well as the Libyan-Egyptians, also seemingly uprooted from their original homelands, presumably in Egypt. Undoubtedly these deportations contributed greatly to the decline of genuine Cushite blood in Ethiopia.

After describing the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus Siculus goes on to describe in contrast the primitive hominids dwelling in Ethiopia and nearby regions. It is apparent here that “Ethiopian” is used here as a loose denonym for a people utterly dissimilar to the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus had described previously.

“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, 3.8.1-3

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.

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

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. Unlike the Congoid, the Aethiopid has a prominent nasal spine and a high-rooted nose.

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, Macmillan 9.8

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

I have collected several photos of Aethiopid examples which my readers may care to peruse. These are contrasted with the most comparable Congoid subtypes I could find. It should be plain to the eye that the Aethiopids have phenotypes which are clearly distinct from those of the Congoid race.

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 East 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

The Nubians themselves appear to be a mixed population of Cushites and aboriginal Nilotes. The single most frequent paternal haplogroup among the Nubians is the West Asian Caucasoid haplogroup J (44%) followed by the North African haplogroup E1b1b (23%). This indicates substantial Caucasoid gene flow from the Cushite males into a Nilotic female gene pool. In the case of the Nubians it is evident that the Nilotic Congoid phenotype and Nilo-Saharan language prevailed in contrast to the Caucasoid Afro-Asiatic speaking Ethiopians and Somalis etc.

https://www.docdroid.net/e90MDsD/hassan2008-pdf

(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/

There is some confusion about the meaning of the Hebrew word Kuwsh. Brown-Driver-Briggs offers the definition “black” for Kuwsh, yet this definition appears in no earlier sources and appears to be based on the modern (often derogatory) Jewish usage of Kuwsh rather than any authentic ancient Hebrew definition. Kuwsh and related words are never used to refer to colours in the Scriptures and no internal Biblical evidence supports the definition of Kuwsh as “black”.

We shall now look to some older Hebrew lexicons to scrutinize this modern Jewish definition for Kuwsh. Gesenius never gives an etymology for Kuwsh and only says it refered to a land “inhabited by black men”. Strong’s likewise offers no etymology for Kuwsh but says it is “Probably of foreign origin” and like Gesenius he offers no meaning aside from a proper name. The only sound conclusion is that Kuwsh has no definite meaning aside from a personal name, ethnonym or toponym.

Strong’s explains the word Aethiop (Strong’s G128) as deriving from “aitho (to scorch) and ops (the face, from optanomai)” and referring to “an Aethiopian”. Liddell and Scott define it as “burnt face” and Dodson defines it as “an Ethiopian, Abyssinian”. It has been imagined that this term originated in reference to the dark face of the Congoid which might be perceived as appearing to be burnt, however this may just as easily describe the scorched face of a Caucasian under the Northeast African sun. Had the Greeks desired to name Ethiopia for a naturally black face they ought to have used any of the Greek words commonly used to refer to dark skin such as melas, melos, kelainos or phaios.

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.

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 it seems laughable to think that the Bible, written in Hebrew and Greek in the Levant and Southern Europe, centers around illiterate Bantus in West Africa. Unfortunately many do not have sufficient knowledge of Scripture, history or anthropology 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 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 of this migration is of no academic value and mainly consists of modern authors, often Jews. None of the writings they draw on are of any antiquity and they are, almost without exception, fanciful tales concocted by European or European-Jewish explorers to amuse and please their financiers. Often the sources offered are dead ends and probably often fabrications. They do cite one source which I do hold in some esteem; Leo Africanus’ The History and Description of Africa.

On several occasions Africanus mentions sub-Saharan African Jews and I see no particular reason to doubt this. 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 intermarried with the aboriginal Negroes. This is the most grave sin an Israelite might commit, and the offspring is not acceptable before 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.home.blog/2019/11/21/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation-and-multiculturalism/

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” historical teachings. Many consider themselves to be descendants of Sephardic Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite Jews from Spain.

Despite the spurious nature of “Black Hebrew Israelite” scholarship, I find no need to address any of their claims to a connection to the diaspora from Judaea in 70 AD or any of their later descendants known as Jews. These were mostly Edomites, Canaanites and Kenites or Judahites Benjamites and Levites who had mongrelized with the aforementioned cursed tribes.

The elect of Judah largely embraced the Gospel, departed from the temple religion and fled Judaea before the Romans destroyed the temple. Certainly some of those Judaeans who denied the Gospel were merely Israelite heretics and not racially corrupted, but it would not be long before those bloodlines merged with those of their mongrelized co-religionists if they did not convert to Christianity.

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” historical teachings.

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. If the “Black Hebrew Israelites” desire to claim this heritage then they can go right ahead.

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

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

‘Who Killed Jesus?’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/03/27/who-killed-jesus/

https://christogenea.org/articles/no-good-fruit-among-jews-%E2%80%93-forever

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” historical teachings.

The Lemba of South Africa are the only Bantu tribe that has a proven authentic tradition of Jewish heritage verified through a comparison of their oral traditions and genome. Interestingly they carry high frequencies of the West Eurasian paternal haplogroup most common among today’s Jews (J) as well as the Asiatic and Northeast African haplogroup T. They are autosomally sub-Saharan in vast majority and their mitochondrial lineages are sub-Saharan, yet their paternal lineages are of known West Eurasian Caucasoid origin.

These haplogroups are scarce or entirely absent in the Bantu populations that spawned the vast majority of “Black Hebrew Israelites” (carriers of E1b1a) and they are most common in Western Asia and Southern Europe. This male-mediated gene flow from Western Asia can only have arrived via haplogroup J and T Caucasoid men who intermarried with the aboriginal Congoid women.

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

The anthropologist Sigrún Bjarnadóttir wrote of the Lemba that “In terms of physical appearance, some of the early ethnographic work mentioned their “Jewish noses”, a term usually used to describe somehow finer built noses … the Lemba were referred to by themselves and others as white men, suggesting their skin was fairer than that of their neighbors.” (On the Jewish Ancestry of the Lemba People of South Africa, School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Iceland, June 2013 pg. 17).

The AICE Jewish Virtual Library says that “According to oral traditions of origin, the Lemba claim to come from a place in the north called Sena (sometimes Sena One). The Lemba habitually refer to themselves as “the white men who came from Sena.”” It also quotes Professor Trefor Jenkins of the South African Institute for Medical Research and the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg who states that “50% of the Lemba Y chromosomes are Semitic in origin – 40% are Negroid, and the ancestry of the rest cannot be resolved.”

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/lemba

Today the Lemba exhibit a more distinctively Congoid phenotype than anthropologists in the previous centuries have documented, the product of a steady increase in their sub-Saharan African DNA mediated by females. The only Bantu tribe with a provable connection to Judaea has a demonstrable Eurasian Caucasoid origin and was not originally Congoid.

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) and in Northern Assyria (the Shemitic Asshur).

“15 For the LORD shall smite Israel, as a reed is shaken in the water, and he shall root up Israel out of this good land, which he gave to their fathers, and shall scatter them beyond the Euphrates, because they have made their groves, provoking the LORD to anger.”
-1 Kings 14.15

“29 In the days of Phakee king of Israel came Thalgath-phellasar king of the Assyrians, and took Ain, and Abel, and Thamaacha, and Anioch, and Kenez, and Asor, and Galaa, and Galilee, even all the land of Nephthali, and carried them away to the Assyrians.”
-2 Kings 15.29

“6 In 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 17.6

“11 And the king of the Assyrians carried away the Samaritans to Assyria, and put them in Alae and in Abor, by the river Gozan, and in the mountains of the Medes.”
-2 Kings 18.11

“26 And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Phaloch king of Assyria, and the spirit of Thagla-phallasar king of Assyria, and carried away Ruben and Gaddi, and the half-tribe of Manasse, and brought them to Chaach, and Chabor, and to the river Gozan, until this day.”
-1 Chronicles 5.26

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 13.40-45

The historian Flavius Josephus mentions the location of these deported tribes on three different occasions.

“I will in like manner cast thee down again, and will destroy all thy house, and make them food for the dogs and the fowls. For a certain King is rising up, by my appointment, over all this people, who shall leave none of the family of Jeroboam remaining. The multitude also shall themselves partake of the same punishment; and shall be cast out of this good land, and shall be scattered into the places beyond Euphrates; because they have followed the wicked practices of their King, and have worshipped the gods that he made, and forsaken my sacrifices.”
-Josephus, Antiquities of the Judeans 8.11.1

“And such was the end of the nation of the Hebrews; as it hath been delivered down to us. It having twice gone beyond Euphrates. For the people of the ten tribes were carried out of Samaria by the Assyrians, in the days of King Hoshea.”
-Josephus, Antiquities 10.9.7

“… wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Iomans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.”
-Josephus, Antiquities of the Judeans 11.5.2

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. Abraham’s own ancestors were also said to have originated beyond the Euphrates (Joshua 24.2, 15).

‘The Noahite Nations: the Japhethites’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/12/07/the-noahite-nations-the-japhethites/

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

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 West or South of certain Ethiopian rivers. As we shall see shortly, there are two regions known as Ethiopia/Cush in both Scripture and history, one in Northeast Africa and Arabia straddling the Red Sea and one in Western Asia associated with Mesopotamia (Genesis 2.10-14, 10.8-12). Of course the “rivers of Cush”/”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 the Old Testament, 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. The dispersed of Israel of Zephaniah 3.10 must be sought in the Asiatic Cush.

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 is certainly the Tigris while the river Perath is the Euphrates (see Strong’s and Gesenius’ entries for H2313 and H6578). Certainly the geography of Genesis 2 indicates that the Cush of Genesis 2.13 is in Asia and probably it is that domain in Mesopotamia once ruled by Nimrod the Cushite (Genesis 10.8-12).

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).

There being two places named Cush/Ethiopia in history and Scripture which Cush is meant in Zephaniah 3.10 must be determined in light of the rest of Scripture and history. Since Scripture, 2 Esdras and Josephus clearly place Israelites North of Canaan beyond the Euphrates, it must be understood that this refers to the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity dispersed beyond the rivers of the Ethiopia/Cush of Mesopotamia. There they came to be known to history as the Scythians.

https://christogenea.org/essays/herodotus-scythians-persians-prophecy

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

IUIC members admit that my Scythian ancestors are Israelites (33:55) where they cite Raymond Franklin McNair, an esteemed British Israelite scholar of Scottish extraction, and his work ‘Key to Northwest European Origins’. Evidently the significance of the title and contents was lost on the “scholars” at IUIC.

Some “Black Hebrew Israelites” have even admitted that the Scythians were of Israelite extraction, though they cling to the absurd insistence that the Israelites were Negroes. The notion that the Scythians were Negroes is utterly laughable, and I will not even dignify this with any lengthly response. Demonstrably the Scythians are the forebears of the Gaulish and Germanic tribes, the fairest races of people on earth.

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

Another passage the “Black Hebrew Israelites” use to point to an African Ethiopian residence for the dispersed of Israel is Isaiah 11.11-12. There Cush is mentioned between Pathros (upper Egypt) and Elam (Iran) indicating that it is probably the Mesopotamian Cush that is being referred to. It should here be noted that there has never been any substantial amount of Negroes in any of the West Asian regions mentioned here in Isaiah. Regardless of these considerations, even if this verse refers to the African Cush this is in no way indicative that these Israelites were Negroes simply because of an Ethiopian residence.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/12/26/the-noahite-nations-the-hamites/

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

Ancient Judaean mosaics and murals have been unearthed in Palestine and Syria. These works of Hebrew religious art 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 and murals are Greek or Roman rather than Judaean, but this is demonstrably false.

These mosaics and murals are all from well known archaeological sites in Huqoq, Sepphoris, Hamat Tiberias, Beit She’an, Gaza and Dura Europos. They span Palestine and Syria and the dates range from the 2nd to 6th centuries AD. Almost all of these were found in synagogues and many contain Hebrew or Aramaic text while the subjects include Scripture and Judaean history.

The Syrians were descendants of Aram, the brother of Arphaxad, the forebear of the Hebrews. The ancient Syrians left behind many funerary reliefs depicting themselves. These clearly display the Europoid features of the offspring of Aram, cousins of the ancient Israelites. The tomb of Rekhmire in Thebes (Theban Tomb TT100) contains murals depicting red haired Syrian tribute bearers. In the Anatolian city of Edessa some funerary mosaics have been discovered which depict pale and sometimes grey-eyed Aramaeans.

‘White Ancient Aram’ https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/white-ancient-aram/

‘White Ancient Israel’

‘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 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 [shen, H8127] tower; thine eyes are as pools [berekah, H1295] in Esebon, by the gates of the daughter of many: thy nose is as the tower [migdal, H4026] of Libanus, looking toward Damascus.”
-Song of Solomon 7.4

Strong’s H8127, shen:
“crag, forefront, ivory, sharp, tooth
From shanan; a tooth (as sharp); specifically (for shenhabbiym) ivory; figuratively, a cliff — crag, X forefront, ivory, X sharp, tooth.”

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) tooth, ivory 1a) tooth 1a1) of man, lex talionis, beast 1b) tooth, tine (of fork) 1c) ivory 1c1) as material 1c2) of commerce 1d) sharp pointed rock”

Strong’s H1295, berekah:
“fishpool
From barak; a reservoir (at which camels kneel as a resting-place) — (fish-)pool.”

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) pool, pond”

Strong’s H4026, migdal:
“castle, flower, tower
Also (in plural) feminine migdalah {mig-daw- law’}; from gadal; a tower (from its size or height); by analogy, a rostrum; figuratively, a (pyramidal) bed of flowers — castle, flower, tower. Compare the names following.”

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) tower 1a) tower 1b) elevated stage, pulpit 1c) raised bed”

Obviously the Congoid does not have a neck the colour of teeth or ivory, eyes like pools of water or a nose like a tower. Rather it is dark skinned, dark eyed and flat nosed. If the subject were a Congoid we might read of a neck like an ebony tower, eyes like pits of tar and a nose like a mound of manure.

“12 And he sent and fetched him: and he was ruddy [admoni, H132], 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

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

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

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) red, ruddy (of Esau as infant)”

Gesenius’ entry for admoni says “red, i.e. red-haired, rothhaarig [German], used of Esau, Gen. 25:25 ; of David, 1 Sa. 16:12 ; 17:42 ; LXX. [Greek Septuagint] πυρράκης ; Vulg. [Latin Vulgate] rufus.” Liddell & Scott defines πυρράκης/purrakes as “Redhead, common name of a slave, prop. of the red-haired slaves from Thrace”. Obviously these words cannot describe the dark skinned and dark haired Congoid who has no 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] and ruddy [adom, H122], chosen out from myriads.”
-Song of Solomon 5.10

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

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) dazzling, glowing, clear, bright”

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

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) red, ruddy (of man, horse, heifer, garment, water, lentils)”

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 princes were purer than snow, whiter [tsachach, H6705] than milk; their bodies were more ruddy [adom, H119] than coral, the beauty of their form was like sapphire.”
-Lamentations 4.7

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

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) (Qal) to be dazzling, be aglow, glow”

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)”

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) to be red, red 1a) (Qal) ruddy (of Nazarites) 1b) (Pual) 1b1) to be rubbed red 1b2) dyed red 1b3) reddened 1c) (Hiphil) 1c1) to cause to show red 1c2) to glare 1c3) to emit (show) redness 1d) (Hithpael) 1d1) to redden 1d2) to grow red 1d3) to look red”

The dark skin of the Congoid is not white, and neither is it dazzling or bright or comparable to milk and snow. The comparisons to these substances leave no room to twist the meanings of the adjectives. 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, chavar: 
“wax pale
A primitive root; to blanch (as with shame) — wax pale.”

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) (Qal) to be white, grow white, grow pale”

Of course the Congoid cannot 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 nonsensical to the Hebrew reader. Of course Jacob, being Caucasoid, 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] than snow.”
-Psalm 51.7

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).”

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) to be white 1a) (Hiphil) 1a1) to make white, become white, purify 1a2) to show whiteness, grow white 1b) (Hithpael) to become white, be purified (ethical) 2) (Qal) to make bricks”

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.

“6 Enquire, and see if a male has born a child? and ask concerning the fear, wherein they shall hold their loins, and look for safety: for I have seen every man, and his hands are on his loins; their faces are turned to paleness [yeraqon, H3420].”
-Jeremiah 30.6

Strong’s H3420, yeraqon:
“greenish, yellow
From yereq; paleness, whether of persons (from fright), or of plants (from drought) — greenish, yellow.”

Brown-Driver-Briggs:
“1) mildew, paleness, lividness 1a) mildew, rust 1b) paleness”

Gesenius’ entry offers the definition “paleness of face; that lurid greenish colour in the countenance of men when smitten with great terror”. The Negroe is never a pale yellow-green hue. A pure Congoid is much too dark for the yellowing of skin to be observable whether caused by jaundice or fear. This pallour of the Israelites can only be attributed to the Caucasoid race.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” are quick to dismiss these descriptions as purely idiomatic descriptions of non-physical attributes such as purity and youthful vigour. However this is a ridiculous attempt to avoid the obvious, and still it fails them. If the Hebrews were racially Congoid these idioms would have made no sense to a native Hebrew speaker who would see these physical traits as alien to himself. Why on earth would a naturally black race construct idioms which glorify whiteness and ruddiness?

Of course the “Black Hebrew Israelites” will retreat even further to claim that these are descriptions of albino Congoids. Albinism in Congoids is highly infrequent and certainly could not account for all these descriptions of so many different Hebrew individuals. The Song of Solomon 7.4 indicates that this explanation falls short where it describes a woman’s nose as a tower, a trait which Congoids do not naturally possess regardless of their pigmentation.

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 King David. (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.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” point to the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite Jew midrash Sefer ha Yashar (“the book of Jasher”) chapter 90 verse 8 where the rabbis claim the Kittim “became one kingdom” with the Edomites. They then extend this association to other nations the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite rabbis claim sprang from Kittim such as Italy (Sefer ha Yashar 10.16, 61.25) Firstly it is necessary to identify the Kittim.

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).

Kittim is mentioned next to Elishah in Genesis 10, and Elishah can be identified 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 (Arthur Bernard Knapp, Alashiya, Caphtor/Keftiu, and Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Recent Studies in Cypriote Archaeology and History, Journal of Field Archaeology 12 (2):231–250).

This validates Josephus’ claim that the Kittim were early Cypriots and not Aegean or Italiot Greeks, Trojan-Romans or any of the Italic tribes. It can be demonstrated that the Romans primarily sprang from the Dardaans of classical history who are the descendants of Judah through his descendant Darda while the Greeks were a conglomerate of Israelites, Philistines and Javanites. Neither nation is of Edomite extraction and both are addressed as Israelites throughout the New Testament.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/epistles-of-paul

‘The Dispersions of Israel: the Danaans and Dorians’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/04/20/the-dispersions-of-israel-the-danaans-and-dorians/

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

It can be thoroughly demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite Jew midrash Sefer ha Yashar is not the authentic book of Jasher mentioned in Scripture (Joshua 10.13, 2 Samuel 1.18), but is only a spurious work of ahistorical medieval rabbinical literature. We will not get into this in any depth here. Suffice it to say that it is riddled with contradictions with Scripture, historical anachronisms and laughable tales akin to what one might expect of a comic book.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/spurious-book-jasher-sven-longshanks

“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.

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. A naturally dark people would surely not be ashamed of a swarthy complexion.

“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.”

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to quote the latter half of the following passage as evidence that the Israelites were black-skinned. We already examined the first verse earlier on, and now we shall look at the following verse.

“7 Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire:

8 Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.”
-Lamentations 4

It should be obvious to anyone mentally competent that these descriptions employ hyperbole as no one is truly whiter than snow or blacker than smoke, soot or coal. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” completely miss the significance of this passage; only Whites can go from light to dark while blacks can only get blacker and can never make their skin white. Notice that the Nazirite’s natural white and ruddy state in verse 7 is described as beautiful and pure while they are described in verse 8 as withered and unrecognizable. Of course they were unrecognizable; they had formerly been white!

“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. Brown-Driver-Briggs defines H122 as “red, ruddy (of man, horse, heifer, garment, water, lentils)”, quite a diverse range of substances which display widely varied hues of red.

Strong’s defines it as “rosy — red, ruddy.”, and certainly rosy does not describe the Negroe. Gesenius defines it as “red, ruddy, used of a garment stained with blood, Isaiah 63:2; of rosy cheeks, Cant. 5:10; [the Song of Solomon]”. Clearly this definition does not match the description of the Negroe at all, a race which never displays rosy cheeks.

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.

A popular talking point of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” is that Adam was created from the soil. They imagine that, since they are the colour of dirt, that Adam must’ve been too. This is a ridiculous and childish understanding of God’s creation. There is absolutely no reason to imagine that the substance of the soil had to remain the same hue as it had before its transformation. It is ridiculous to assume that it maintained the same colour while it changed completely on a molecular level.

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 His head and hairs were white as white wool, and as snow, and his eyes were as a flame of fire,

15 And his feet like unto fine brass burning as in a furnace: and his voice as the sound of many waters.”
-Revelation 1

Brass burning in a furnace.

This passage may also be compared to the description of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.9. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” take this passage 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.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” hope to liken themselves to the brass (chalkolibanon, Strong’s G5474) of Revelation 1.15, which is quite a blunder on their part. The origin of chalkolibanon is as “a compound of chalkos and libanos (in the implied mean of whiteness or brilliancy)” (Strong’s s.v.), an etymology with which Thayer agrees (Thayer s.v.).

Libanos is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew word lebownah (Strong’s s.v.) which is defined as “frankincense (from its whiteness or perhaps that of its smoke)” (Strong’s s.v.). Gesenius says lebownah is “so called because of the white colour of the purest frankincense” and cites Pliny the Elder’s Natural History 7.14 concerning the white hue of the fine frankincense known to the classical world. The origin of lebownah is from laban (Strong’s s.v.) which is defined simply as “white” (Strong’s and Gesenius s.v.).

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that verse 15 describes burnt bronze which they liken to their own skin. This interpretation however is not true to the meaning of the Greek text. The word pepyromenes is a form of pyroo (G4448) meaning “kindle”, “be ignited”, “be on fire” or “glow” (Strong’s s.v.). Thayer defines pepyromenes as meaning “made to glow”, “fiery” or “melted by fire”. One might arguably translate pepyromenes as “having been refined”, but of course refined bronze is not at all close to the skin colour of a Congoid.

The sun shining.

In verse 16 we see Christ’s countenance described as shining like the sun. The fact that He is described as luminous necessitates that we accept Thayer’s and Strong’s definitions “fiery”, “made to glow”, “be on fire” or “glow” as the colour of burnt bronze is hardly luminous. Of course this cannot possibly describe the dark skin of a Congoid which reflects very little light.

“16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two edged sword, and his face shone as the sun shineth in his strength.”
-Revelation 1

Another passage they misinterpret is at Revelation 3 where God is described as He sits upon his heavenly throne.

“3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.”
-Revelation 4

A variety of jasper.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” cherry-pick a few particularly dark examples of sard stones and insist this means God is some exotic shade of dark reddish brown. Firstly we ought to consider whether or not this description should be interpreted literally. Jasper is a very diverse stone which comes in a wide variety of colours and we cannot be certain which colour John had in mind.

A variety of jasper.

Nonetheless we will continue consider the sardis stone. Thayer defines sardion (Strong’s G4556) as “a precious stone of which there are two types, the former is called a carnelian (because flesh coloured) and the latter a sard”. Dodson defines sardion as “carnelian”.

Carnelian/sard.

Sard and carnelian stones are similar stones, and the names are often used interchangeably. The difference is not rigidly defined, but sard is generally darker than carnelian. These stones range in hue from a pinkish white to reddish brown. The Oxford Advanced American Dictionary defines carnelian as “a red, brown, or white stone”.

Carnelian/sard.

We cannot be certain precisely what hue of carnelian John had in mind, and so this point is moot. If John intends a literal description of Christ’s physical form in Revelation 4.3 he is most likely describing the contrast of white and ruddy flesh like that of the other Israelites described in Scripture (Song of Solomon 5.10, 7.4, Lamentations 4.7).

Carnelian/sard.
Jesus as the Good Shepherd, the Catacomb of Callixtus, Rome, 3rd century. This is widely regarded as the earliest detailed depiction of Jesus Christ. Here he is depicted as a brown haired White man in Greco-Roman apparel with beard shaven and hair cropped short in Greco-Roman fashion.

All of the earliest Christian icons depicting Jesus Christ and the Apostles invariably portray them as a White men, whether they be Greek, Roman, British, Coptic or Syriac.

Jesus and his disciples, the Catacomb of Domitilla, Rome, 3rd century.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” disregard the most ancient depictions of Jesus and his disciples in favour of a selection of faded icons which they interpret as depicting Congoids. Typically these icons are from the middle ages and locations far and disconnected from the Holy Land making them unreliable sources to inform us of the racial character of the Israelites.

An example of an icon presented as evidence for the “Black Hebrew Israelites”, alleged to be kept at the Coptic Museum in Cairo, Egypt and to date to the 4th century (I cannot authenticate these claims). Notice that the paint on Jesus and the figures on the left is faded leaving them darker than the figures on the right who have a tanned skin tone and reddish and sandy brown hair. Also notice Jesus’ straight reddish brown hair parted neatly down the middle. One must be horribly deluded to think this iconostasis portrays Congoids.

Invariably the iconography which they cherry pick does not depict Congoids. They always depict Caucasoids with tanned or swarthy skin or the paint has faded or been stained by the smoke of candles, incense and torches.

Jesus, the Catacomb of Commodilla, Rome, 4th century. This is one of the earliest depictions of Jesus with long hair and a full beard. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” largely believe the ahistorical conspiracy theory that the image of a long haired and bearded White Jesus is based on the image of Cesare Borgia who lived over a millennia after this icon was painted.

If only the “Black Hebrew Israelites” had a clue about biological anthropology they would see that none of these icons show Congoids. No ancient icon has ever depicted Jesus or his disciples with telltale Congoid traits such as protruding jaws, thick lips and wide and flat noses.

Another example of an icon presented as evidence for the “Black Hebrew Israelites”, the Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia, 15th century. Notice the sandy brown hair and clear Caucasoid features of the figures depicted. Only a dishonest or delusional person would try to pass these figures off as Congoids.

The desperation of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” is rarely more clear than their cherry picking and twisted interpretations of ancient and medieval Christian iconography. The most ancient portrayals of Christ and his disciples invariably refute their absurd theories.

Jesus seated between St. Peter and St. Paul, the Catacomb of St. Marcellinus and St. Peter, Rome, 4th century. Notice their ruddy skin and the reddish beards of St. Peter and Jesus.

If indeed ancient Judaea was inhabited by Congoids, then surely their southerly neighbours in North Africa would’ve been well aware that Jesus and his disciples were black. This is clearly not the case however, and Coptic iconography consistently depicts Caucasoids.

Jesus and Abbot Mena, the Monastery of St. Apollo, Bawit, Egypt, 6th century. This is the earliest surviving Coptic icon depicting Christ.

One could spend a great deal of time criticizing the “Black Hebrew Israelite” interpretations of Christian iconography but I will not waste my time. Any competent person can do some cursory research and see the obvious fact that all ancient Christian iconography depicts Caucasoids.

The Virgin Mary and the infant Jesus Christ with saints and angels, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Egypt, 6th century.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that the Biblical name Piynechac (Phineas) comes from the Egyptian word Panhsj meaning “Nubian”, however this is not at all in agreeance with the definitions of reputable Hebrew lexicographers. Strong’s says of Piynechac that it is “from peh [H6310] and a variation of nachash [H5175]” and defines it as “mouth of a serpent”. Brown-Driver-Briggs offers the etymology “mouth of brass”, evidently finding nechash [brass, H6174] rather than nachash. Gesenius explains it as “mouth of brass” and agrees with Brown-Driver-Briggs’ etymology.

A Benjamite named Kuwsh (Cush) is mentioned in Psalm 7.1 and the “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim this proves that he was a Negroe, interpreting Kuwsh as “black”. Brown-Driver-Briggs does offer the definition “black” for Kuwsh, yet this definition appears in no earlier sources and appears to be based on the modern (often derogatory) Jewish usage of Kuwsh rather than any authentic ancient Hebrew definition. Kuwsh and related words are never used to refer to colours in the Scriptures and no internal Biblical evidence supports the definition of Kuwsh as “black”.

We shall now look to some older Hebrew lexicons to scrutinize this modern Jewish definition for Kuwsh. Gesenius never gives an etymology for Kuwsh and only says it refered to a land “inhabited by black men”. Strong’s likewise offers no etymology for Kuwsh but says it is “Probably of foreign origin” and like Gesenius he offers no meaning aside from a proper name. The only sound conclusion is that Kuwsh has no definite meaning aside from a personal name, ethnonym or toponym. There is much more to be said of “Black Hebrew Israelite” doctrines which depend upon a notion of kinship and racial affinity between West African Niger-Congo peoples and Northeast African Afro-Asiatic peoples which will be discussed later in this presentation.





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.

The bust of Pescennius Niger, the Hall of Busts, Vatican. Pescennius was called Niger in reference to his swarthy neck which stood in contrast to the rest of his body (Historian Augusta, Life of Pescennius Niger 6.6).

But of course Simon was not called Niger on account of being a Negroe. It is hardly unique for White people to be called black as we see in the use of the term 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.

A denarius of Pescennius Niger, Antioch, Anatolia.

As we have seen earlier in this presentation, the Judaeans were certainly White, and Simon was no exception. Note that Niger (Strong’s G3526) in this context is a name of Latin origin (Strong’s and Thayer’s s.v.) and it was common for Romans to take the names of colours in reference to their hair colour (e.g. Rufus or Flavus).

Samson is famous for his long locks of hair (Judges 16.13, 19) of which he had seven. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” insist that these must be nappy crinkled dreadlocks popular among Africans. Strong’s defines Samson’s locks (machalapha, H4253) as “a ringlet of hair (as gliding over each other) — lock.” Brown-Driver-Briggs defines it as “braid, lock, plait”. Samson most probably wore his hair in seven braids or plaits.

Detail of a Scythian gold pectoral from the Tovsta Mohyla kurgan, Ukraine. Notice the distinct locks of the Scythian on the right as well as his unmistakably Europoid features.

Gathered locks of varied kinds were popular among the White Greeks in ancient times and do not necessitate that the wearer have wool instead of hair (Rick Steves, Athens and the Peloponnese, Avalon Travel p. 165, Ian Jenkins, Archaic Kouroi in Naucratis: The Case for Cypriot Origin, American Journal of Archaeology vol. 105 pp. 168–175, Richard Hook, The Spartan Army, Osprey Publishing p. 24). The Scythians also were known to have worn gathered locks as depicted above on a Scythian gold pectoral from the Tovsta Mohyla kurgan, Ukraine.

The Kroisos Kouros, Anavyssos, Attica, Greece. Notice the distinct locks and unmistakably Europoid features.

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 Israelite” racial delusion.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” have imagined that the Semites are their forebears while Ham fathered the full-blooded Congoids of Africa. On account of the European admixture of African-Americans they have come to see themselves as a separate race. 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. “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to denigrate Caucasoids, but the Caucasus region is where all the sons of Noah came from.

“4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat (Strong’s H780).”
-Genesis 8.4

Ararat is a district in Armenia, a country of the Caucasus region. First from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance:

“Ararat, Armenia
Of foreign origin; Ararat (or rather Armenia) — Ararat, Armenia.”

Now from Brown-Driver-Briggs:

“Ararat = “the curse reversed: precipitation of curse” 1) a mountainous region of eastern Armenia, between the river Araxes and the lakes Van and Oroomiah, the site where Noah’s ark came to rest 2) (TWOT) the mountain where Noah’s ark came to rest”

Gesenius’ definition for Ararat.

The Adamites expanded first from Mount Ararat in the Armenian Highlands and later from Shinaar in Mesopotamia (Strong’s and Gesenius’ s.v. Shin’ar, H8152). These are lands historically occupied by Caucasoids and encompass lands which many modern anthropologists regard as the original homelands of the Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic languages which predominate among the Caucasoid race (according to the Anatolian, Armenian and Fertile Crescent hypotheses).

From the Ural Mountains in the far North to the Horn of Africa in the far South, and from Iberia in the far West to India in the far East, all the lands inhabited by the early Adamites were historically occupied by Caucasoids. The nations of Genesis 10 encompass all the great nations of history including Egypt, Lydia, Assyria, Crete, Persia, Ionia, Babylon, Media and Thrace among others while none can be soundly identified with any non-Caucasoid races.

In his entry for Adam (H120) Strong’s tells us the word is “From ‘adam [or adom, H119]; ruddy” and Strong’s explains that adom (H119) means “to show blood in the face”, “flush or turn rosy” or “be made ruddy”. Many claim Adam derives from adamah (soil, H127), but this defies all convention whereby the smaller component (adam) is the root of the larger derivative (adamah) and no reputable lexicographers ascribe such an origin to Adam.

‘A Presentation on the Noahite Nations’

https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=587525885184577&id=296739117596590

‘Adam: the Patriarch of One Race’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/adam-the-patriarch-of-one-race/

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/the-origins-of-the-non-adamic-races/

One of the “Black Hebrew Israelite’s” favourite sources to cite is Zondervan’s Bible Dictionary where under the entry for Ham he states “he became the progenitor of the dark races; not the Negroes, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites”. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” have posited that this proves that the Negroes descend from Shem, but this is actually very far from the truth. For the sake of further clarification about how Western scholarship viewed the place of the Negroe in the Bible (or lack thereof) we shall cite another modern source, one which is widely held in high regard.

In its entry for Ham The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia describes him as “The youngest son of Noah, from whom sprang the western and southwestern nations known to the Hebrews.” It is clear here that the author did not consider all tribes to be known to the Hebrews and accounted for in Genesis 10. This is certainly a factual assessment as there is no trace of any Negro nation of any variety in the table of nations or anywhere else in Scripture.

Further on the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states “Of the nationalities regarded as descending from Ham, none can be described as really black.” Apparently the author thought that the Hebrews were unacquainted with the Negroes or were scarcely aware of their existence, which is certainly accurate. Egypt and the Sahara desert stood between the ancestors of the Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan peoples and West Asia when Moses penned the Pentateuch. The Negroe was hardly known to North Africa in Moses’ time, much less to the Levant.

An ethnographic map from Meyers Konversations-Lexikon (1885-1890). Notice that the Arier (“Aryans”, considered synonymous with Japhethites), Hamiten (Hamites) and Semiten (Semites) only occupy Europe, North Africa, Northeast Africa, Western Asia, Central Asia and parts of India, corresponding to the spread of the Kaukasische Rasse (Caucasian Race).

Europeans have always considered the Shemites, Hamites and Japhethites to be three branches of the Caucasoid race and European scholarship before the age of political correctness was content to regard the Negroes and other non-Caucasoid races in East Asia, Oceania and the New World etc. as outliers of no known lineage. Most scholars were content to let the reason for the absence of these races in the Bible remain a mystery and this is certainly true of Zondervan. If one only looks at his entries for Shem, Jacob and Israel it is apparent that Zondervan did not attribute the origin of the Negroes to them.

‘Adam: Patriarch of One Race’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/adam-the-patriarch-of-one-race/

Lebanese woman.

Genetic evidence refutes the absurd theories of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” 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.

Lebanese woman.

“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 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 and before the Ottomans depleted the Levantine woodlands much of the Holy Land was forested.

Samaritan 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.

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

Lebanese woman.

Though the “Black Hebrew Israelites” make much ado about the effects of sun on the White man and claim that Whites would die under the Egyptian and Levantine sun, the truth is that the Egyptians were the first of all men known to have used sunscreen.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2471534

Iraqi man.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” are inconsistent when it comes to the matter of Whites dealing with the climate of the Near East. On one hand they claim that depigmentation makes it impossible to survive in such a climate, while on the other hand they say that Esau-Edom was a White nation which lived in the Near East the entire time that Israel did.

There is no evidence in the archaeological records of any substantial population of Negroids/Congoids ever inhabiting West Asia. If the “Black Hebrew Israelites” were correct then surely the Levant would be littered with Congoid remains.

A Syrian/Aramite (son of Aram son of Shem) from the tomb of Rekhmire compared to Caucasoid (top) and Congoid/Negroid skulls. Notice the lack of prognathism of the jaws and rufosity. One of these things is not like the others.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” have failed to realize that they are utterly dissimilar racially to all the autocthonous peoples of the Near East, both ancient and modern.

Amenhotep III and Queen Tiy depicted at the tomb of Ameneminet.

Ancient depictions of their neighbours and relatives can be compared to the physical characteristics of the Congoid race, and it is absolutely clear that the Congoid race is utterly alien to these peoples.

An Elamite archer (son of Elam son of Shem), Susa, Iran.

Ancient Shemites such as the Elamites, Lydians, Aramites and Assyrians left many artifacts depicting themselves, and they clearly do not represent the Congoid race with its many obvious peculiarities.

Ashurbanipal of Assyria (son of Asshur son of Shem), Ninevah, Iraq.

Ancient scholars associated Shem with unquestionably White peoples such as the ancient Armenians, Lydians, Paeonians, Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Arians, Hyrcanians, Parthians, Scythians and Germans (Hyppolytus, Chronica 190, Josephus, Antiquities 1.6.4).

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

A Lydian delegate (son of Lud son of Shem), Apadana, Persopolis, Iran.

All of these tribes were certainly Aryan, and evidently these ancient interpreters believed that Shem had sired them. It cannot be imagined that these scholars would have associated the Shemites with these White tribes if the true Shemitic stock was black.

A defeated Canaanite, Thebes, Egypt.

Many “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 credible lexicographers as refering to leprosy (Gesenius’ and Strong’s s.v.). The Oxford Advanced American Dictionary defines leprosy as “an infectious disease that causes painful white areas on the skin and can destroy nerves and flesh”.

A Europoid suffering from vitiligo.

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.

A Europoid suffering from vitiligo.

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 skin and making us white as those afflicted by leprosy or having the appearance of leprosy (2 Kings 5.27, Numbers 12.10, Exodus 4.6).

My skin compared to snow.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” think that only a Congoid would notice if their skin turned “white as snow”, but this is not at all true. The skin of the Europoid is usually not literally white, but a pale ruddy hue. As many of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” say “Caucasians aren’t white, they’re red”, and this is partially true. We’re actually both “white” and “ruddy” (Song of Solomon 5.10, Lamentations 4.7) as certain parts of our body never blush.

Me blushing with my winter pallour. White and ruddy.

It is clear from Scripture that leprosy was considered contagious which is not an attribute of vitiligo. 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. Here we will investigate some of these prophecies and further expose the falsehoods of the “Black Hebrew Israelites”.

The real Israelites have been dispersed to the North and the West, Iberia, Anatolia, Persia, Russia and Greece.

Speaking of the restoration of Israel, Isaiah writes in chapter 49 that “Behold, these shall come from far: and these from the north and the west, and others from the land of the Persians” (vs. 12). In chapter 66 Isaiah writes of a ministry of Israelites to the nations saying “I will send forth them that have escaped of them to the nations, to Tarshiysh [Strong’s H8659], and Puwl [H6322], and Luwd [H3865]”. Next The LXX has Mosoch (the Greek transliteration of Meshek, H4902) where the Masoretic Text reads “that draw the bow” (mashak, H4900).

‘The New Covenant with Israel’ https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/the-new-covenant-with-israel/

Isaiah 66.19 continues: “to Tuwbal [H8422], and to Yavan [H3120], and to the isles afar off”. Puwl was a king of Assyria (Strong’s and Gesenius’ s.v.) and Tarshiysh is named for a son of Javan. His territory corresponds to ancient Tartessus in Iberia while his father gave his name to Ionia on the Eastern Aegean coast. Luwd was a son of Shem who left his name to the lands of Lydia and Luwia in Anatolia. The original habitations of Japheth’s sons Meshek and Tuwbal can be identified with the regions of Moscow and Tobolsk in Russia.

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

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

In Jeremiah chapter 3 Got tells the prophet “Go and read these words toward the north, and thou shalt say, Return to me, O house of Israel” (vs. 12). In that same chapter the prophet speaks of dispersed Israel and Judah saying “they shall come, together, from the land of the north” (vs. 18). In Jeremiah 23 we read “behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when they shall no more say, The Lord lives, who brought up the house of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but The Lord lives, who has gathered the whole seed of Israel from the north land” (vss. 7-8). Later in chapter 31 Jeremiah says “I will bring them from the north country” (vs. 8). Opening his first epistle St. Peter addresses “those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (vs. 1), all districts within Anatolia inhabited by Greeks, Romans and Gauls.

It can be demonstrated clearly through a thorough examination of Scripture and ancient history that the children of Israel were dispersed in a series of migrations from the time of the Exodus until the Assyrian captivity. These Israelites were dispersed to all of the territories mentioned in Isaiah 49.12, 66.19, Jeremiah 3.18, 23.7-8, 31.8 and 1 Peter 1.1. There they were variously known by the names of Scythians, Cimmerians, Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Dardaans, Trojans, Danaans, Dorians and their various more particular tribal divisions.

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

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

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

https://christogenea.org/essays/herodotus-scythians-persians-prophecy

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

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

The Israelites are comprised of mighty nations, having command of the waters, coasts and vast lands and possessing the gates of their enemies.

In Genesis 22 God promises Abraham “thy seed shall inherit the cities of their enemies” (vs. 17) and later on in chapter 24 Rebekah’s family blesses her saying “let thy seed possess the cities of their enemies.” (vs. 60). In Genesis 49 Jacob blesses Judah saying “thy hands shall be on the back of thine enemies” (vs. 8). He also blessed Joseph saying “God helped thee, and he blessed thee with the blessing of heaven from above, and the blessing of the earth possessing all things” (vs. 25).

In Numbers 24 Balaam prophecies of Jacob-Israel saying “He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.” (vs. 7) In Deuteronomy 33 Moses blesses Joseph saying “Of the blessing of the Lord be his land, of the fruits of heaven, and of the dew, and of the deep that lieth beneath.” (vs. 13). He also blesses Zebulon “Who shall suck as milk the abundance of the sea, and the hidden treasures of the sands.” (vs 19) Psalm 89 speaks of blessings upon King David writing that “I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.” (vs. 25)

Clearly the Negroes have never had dominion over their historical enemies or taken possession of the world. On the contrary; Africa has been almost completely colonized by European Christians and European powers could at any time seize control of Africa’s primitive and unstable power structures. It is European colonial and naval forces who have fulfilled these prophecies of power and ambition as we spread to the four corners of the earth and established Jacob-Israel’s prophecied company of nations. We will revisit this point again soon.

The true Israelites are a company or commonwealth of nations.

In Genesis 35 God appears to Jacob, blesses him and says “I am thy God; increase and multiply; for nations and gatherings [H6951, G4864] of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins.” (vs. 11) This promise is repeated in Genesis 48.4. The word qahal (H6951) properly means “assembly, company, congregation, multitude” (Strong’s s.v.), “Especially the the congregation of the people of Israel” (Gesenius’ s.v.)

Synagoge (G4864) properly means “an assemblage of persons; specially, a Jewish [sic Judaean] “synagogue”” (Strong’s s.v.), “an assembly, congregation” (Dodson s.v.) or “a bringing together, uniting” (Liddell-Scott-Jones s.v.). The company of nations prophecied to come from the fathers must therefore be an organized society of nations united and assembled together as a unified cohesive entity.

This is affirmed in Ephesians 2 where Paul tells the Greeks of Ephesus “at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth [G4174] of Israel” (vs. 12). Politeia (G4174) means “citizenship”, “community” (Strong’s s.v.), “polity; citizen body” (Dodson s.v.) or “citizenship” (Liddell-Scott-Jones s.v.). Clearly Jacob’s company of nations constitutes an organized polity. While such a thing is the norm for White civilization, the same cannot be said of the Negroe.

European Christians have organized many such societies such as the Holy Roman Empire, the British Commonwealth and the United States of America to name a few, all of which are ultimately united as parts of Christendom. In contrast the Negroes in Africa are under no political or religious unification and are ruled largely by exploitative warlords or foreign powers.

Even where Negroes gather in any sort of confederacy or coalition they hardly cultivate the spirit of civility and high trust that binds a high civilization together and the possibility of explosive, contagious violence is never far away. All credible Western historians who broached the topic have historically acknowledged the savagery to which the Negroe is naturally predisposed.

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

The Israelites are the custodians of God’s word.

In Psalm 147 in a Psalm of Haggai and Zacharias we read “He sends his word to Jacob, his ordinances and judgments to Israel. He has not done so to any other nation; and he has not shewn them his judgments.” (vss. 19-20) At Isaiah 59 the prophet speaks of the New Covenant saying “My Spirit which is upon thee, and the words which I have put in thy mouth, shall never fail from thy mouth, nor from the mouth of thy seed, for the Lord has spoken it, henceforth and for ever.” (vs. 21)

European Christians can certainly take credit for their stewardship of the Scriptures. Important Bible versions produced or preserved by the White race include the Greek Septuagint and New Testament, the Aramaic Peshitta and Diatessaron, the Latin Vetus Latina and Vulgate, the Gothic Wufila Bible, the Old English Hexateuch, the Middle English Wycliffe’s Bible, the German Luther Bible and the English King James Bible. No race has done more for the preservation and distribution of the Scriptures than Europeans.

The Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan peoples that make up the Negroe race could never have preserved the Scriptures as they were historically illiterate, and still largely are to this day. No Negroe people has ever developed a written language of its own and the short-lived adoptions of Latin and Arabic scripts constitute the greatest historical literary advancements ever achieved by the Negroe race.

Needless to say, the Bantu peoples of West Africa and other Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan peoples never produced Bibles of their own and were certainly not the stewards of Scripture. Most West African peoples never even encountered either the teachings of the Old Testament or the Christian Gospel until the time of the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the colonial period.

True Israel would colonize and spread abroad.

During Jacob’s vision of the ladder to heaven in Genesis 28 God spoke to him saying “thy seed shall be as the sand of the earth; and it shall spread abroad to the sea, and the south, and the north, and to the east” (vs. 14) in Deuteronomy 33 Moses blesses Joseph saying “His beauty is as the firstling of his bull, his horns are the horns of a unicorn; with them he shall thrust the nations at once, even from the end of the earth: these are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and these are the thousands of Manasse.” (vs. 17)

In Isaiah chapter 26 the prophet praises the Lord saying “thou hast increased the nation: thou art glorified: thou hadst removed it far unto all the ends of the earth.” (vs. 15) In the next chapter Isaiah speaks of the deliverance of Israel where he writes “they that are coming are the children of Jacob. Israel shall bud and blossom, and the world shall be filled with his fruit.” (vs. 6)

At chapter 54 the prophet describes the future blessing of Israel saying “Enlarge the place of thy tent, and of thy curtains: fix the pins, spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy pins; spread forth thy tent yet to the right and the left: for thy seed shall inherit the nations, and thou shalt make the desolate cities to be inhabited.” (vss. 2-3) Speaking of the restoration of Israel in Zechariah 10 the prophet says “I will sow them among the people; and they that are afar off shall remember me: they shall nourish their children, and they shall return.” (vs. 9)

Quite clearly these passages describe and foretell the colonial expansions of Israel who was destined to spread abroad, thrust the nations from the ends of the earth, inherit the nations and inhabit the desolate places. This of course has found fulfillment in the European Christian race and its many colonial endeavours, both ancient and modern. Obviously the Negroe race has never even dreamed of such pursuits and lacks the faculties to achieve them. The Negroes have never undertaken colonialism in any form and so they simply cannot be Jacob-Israel.

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

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. Some even believe that the prefix Afro refers to the afro hairstyle rather than to the geographical region of Africa. In truth the Afro-Asiatic languages are spoken exclusively by the autocthonous Caucasoid peoples and peoples of mixed Caucasoid-Congoid origin in North Africa and the Horn of Africa while the African people of “pure” Congoid stock speak unrelated 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 which can be identified with certainty spoke Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, Hurro-Urartian, Kartvelian, Uralic or isolate languages. The Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages have no affinity with the languages of Scripture such as Hebrew, Aramaic (both Afro-Asiatic) or Greek (Indo-European).

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 without the aid of Caucasoids. 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. Had the Israelites been Congoids they would have been reliant on mud huts and primitive weaponry and would never have taken to the sea or rode upon chariots and wagons.

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

The Israelites were a predominantly agrarian people largely reliant on 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.

While some Congoids have learned to 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 while it is rare among West Africans.

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.

Sabean alabaster head of a woman, the Baidun Collection, Jerusalem, Palestine.

The Sabeans were well known for their sculptures, particularly in alabaster, many of which survive to this day. These Sabean alabaster figures display distinctive Caucasoid features such as narrow high-rooted noses, orthognathism and long and narrow faces and display none of the features which distinguish the Congoid race. These ancient Sabeans are exemplary representations of the stock of Cush where it was not exposed to non-Adamic Niger-Congo  and Nilo-Saharan admixture.

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/05/01/the-noahite-nations-the-hamites/

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.

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. Unlike the Congoid, the Aethiopid has a prominent nasal spine and a high-rooted nose.

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.

Sabean alabaster head of a man, Sotheby’s, London, United Kingdom.

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

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.

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. It is apparent here that “Ethiopian” is used here as a loose denonym for a people utterly dissimilar to the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus had described previously.

Sabean bronze head of a youth, Ghayman, Yemen.

“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, 3.8.1-3

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.

Sabean statue of a woman, Timna`, Hayd Ibn `Aqîl, Yemen.

“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.”

In Isaiah 20 we read “thus shall the king of the Assyrians lead the captivity of Egypt and the Ethiopians, young men and old, naked and barefoot, having the shame of Egypt exposed.” (vs. 4) This prophecy was surely fulfilled when Esarhaddon of Assyria took the Egyptians and Ethiopians captive (Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, The University of Chicago Press vol. 2 secs. 557ff.).

These deportations must be the source of these White Ethiopians as well as the Libyan-Egyptians, also seemingly uprooted from their original homelands, presumably in Egypt. Undoubtedly these deportations contributed greatly to the decline of genuine Cushite blood in Ethiopia.

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 East 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

Sabean alabaster head of a man, Michel Dumez-Onof, London, United Kingdom.

The Nubians themselves appear to be a mixed population of Cushites and aboriginal Nilotes. The single most frequent paternal haplogroup among the Nubians is the West Asian Caucasoid haplogroup J (44%) followed by the North African haplogroup E1b1b (23%). This indicates substantial Caucasoid gene flow from the Cushite males into a Nilotic female gene pool. In the case of the Nubians it is evident that the Nilotic Congoid phenotype and Nilo-Saharan language prevailed in contrast to the Caucasoid Afro-Asiatic speaking Ethiopians and Somalis etc.

https://www.docdroid.net/e90MDsD/hassan2008-pdf

Earlier on in this presentation we looked at the Hebrew word Kuwsh, and now I shall examine the corresponding Greek word. Strong’s explains the word Aethiop (Strong’s G128) as deriving from “aitho (to scorch) and ops (the face, from optanomai)” and referring to “an Aethiopian”. Liddell and Scott define it as “burnt face” and Dodson defines it as “an Ethiopian, Abyssinian”. It has been imagined that this term originated in reference to the dark face of the Congoid which might be perceived as appearing to be burnt, however this may just as easily describe the scorched face of a Caucasian under the Northeast African sun. Had the Greeks desired to name Ethiopia for a naturally black face they ought to have used any of the Greek words commonly used to refer to dark skin such as melas, melos, kelainos or phaios.

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/

Sabean alabaster head of a man, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, USA.

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/

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 “Black Hebrew Israelites” are fond of a particular quote from Tacitus’ Annals in which he repeats a particular account of Judaean origins saying: “Many assure us that the Judeans are descended from those Ethiopians who were driven by fear and hatred to emigrate from their home country when Cepheus was king.” (Annals, The Histories 5.2) The “Black Hebrew Israelites” infer that this indicates that the Judaeans looked like the Ethiopians.

Sabean alabaster head of a man, the Barakat Collection, London, United Kingdom.

There is however a glaring problem with this inference which is evident when the passage from Annals is read in context. Right before Tacitus relates the account of a migration from Ethiopia he tells us “The Judeans are said to have been refugees from the island of Crete …” (ibid.). It is apparent here that Tacitus just as readily associated the Judaeans with White Crete as with darkened Ethiopia.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’

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

Narmer, the Great Hierakonpolis Palette, Nekhen, Egypt. Compare to the Caucasoid (top) and Congoid skulls.

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.

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, funerary temple of Dahshur, Egypt. Compare to Caucasoid (top) and Congoid skulls.

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

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

“Black Hebrew Israelites” like to point out that Jesus’ family fled into Egypt to hide from Herod (Matthew 2.13-15) and that St. Paul was mistaken once for an Egyptian (Acts 21.37-38). 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.

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 and largely inhabited by Judaeans.

Nefertari (L) and Isis, tomb of Nefertari (QV66), Egypt.

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. In truth the Egyptian who Paul was mistaken for was a man known to history: a false prophet among the Judaeans of Alexandria who led a rebellion against the Roman forces at Jerusalem (Josephus, Antiquities of the Judaeans 20.8.6, Wars of the Judaeans 2.13.5). Paul was not being mistaken for an ethnic Egyptian, but for another Judaean who had lived in Egypt.

Coffin of Amenhotep I, Thebes, Egypt.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” point to instances in the Pentateuch where the Hebrews seem to have been physically similar to the Egyptian nobility that ruled when the Israelites dwelt there (Genesis 42.8, 50.1-11, Exodus 2.19). They claim this proves they were a Negroes, based on the assumption that the Egyptian nobles of the time were racially Congoid. Considering the racially tumultuous history of Egypt it is necessary that we establish when the Israelites lived in Egypt and what race ruled Egypt at that time.

Both the records of Flavius Josephus and an honest study of the chronology of the period attest to us that an 18th Dynasty pharaoh named Thutmose (called Tethmosis by Josephus, Against Apion 1.15) was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Another four pharaohs bearing this name were all related.

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/paul%E2%80%99s-epistle-hebrews-part-14-faith-history

Gilded mummy of a woman, Hawara, Egypt.

Hatshepsut was the fifth of the Thutmosid Dynasty, and it is probably Hatshepsut who drew Moses out of the water, perhaps giving him a form of her family name. The sixth and eighth pharaohs of the dynasty were Thutmose III and IV. The death of the last of the Thutmosids, who perished before he became pharaoh, led to the ascension of his brother Akhenaten. It was during the reign of Akhenaten that the Amarna Letters were written. As I have demonstrated in this essay, the Amarna letters document the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. While his Canaanite subjects begged Akhenaten to send soldiers to halt the Hebrew’s conquest, Akhenaten would not hear their pleas, probably because the Exodus was fresh in his people’s memory.

‘The Noahite Nations: the Shemites’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/01/30/the-noahite-nations-the-shemites/

The Sitting Scribe, Saqqara, Egypt.

Here I have gathered some images of 18th dynasty mummies such as Yuya, Tjuyu, Thutmose IV and Ossipumphnoferu as well as the 19th dynasty pharaoh Ramesses II and they are unquestionably Caucasoid with Nordid features and fair hair. If Israelites such as Moses and Joseph were blending in among their contemporary Egyptian nobility then they must have had similar phenotypes.

Coffin of Amenemopet, Gurna, Egypt.

Of course these Nordoid Egyptians are not the original stock of Mizraim. The Hamitic stock of Egypt was certainly of the Mediterranean variety which is clear from the art of ancient Egypt, the mummified remains of the Egyptians and the racial types which dominate there today, altered somewhat as they are. These Nordoid Egyptian aristocrats of the 19th and 18th dynasties must be of Asiatic Shemitic extraction, most probably connected to the migrations of Asiatic chariot warriors such as the Hyksos from the Levant.

It has been proven by archaeogenetics that the ancient Egyptians were genetically akin to Southern European and Anatolian populations and 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://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017NatCo…815694S/abstract

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170530115141.htm

Limestone statues of Prince Rahotep and his his wife Nofret, the mastaba of Prince Rahotep, Egypt.

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.

‘Caucasian Ancient Mizraim’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/05/13/white-ancient-egypt/

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

Queen Tiye and Pharaoh Amenhotep III, tomb of Ameneminet (TT277), Egypt.

“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 and Kemet certainly refers to the black soil of the Nile Delta and not the skin colour of the inhabitants. The Nile floods enriched the land with rich black soil which distinguished the fertile Kemet (“black land”) from the barren deshret (“red land”) beyond the reach of the waters of the Nile (Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, Psychology Press p. 21).

Cartonnage mask of Shep en-Mut, Thebes, Egypt.

Raymond Faulkner translates kmt into “Egyptians” (Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian, Oxford: Griffith Institute p. 286) and Alan Gardiner translates it as “the Black Land, Egypt” (Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs (3rd ed.), Griffith Institute, Oxford).

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.

Nefertiabet, Giza, Egypt.

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”.

Coffin of Irthorru, Meir, Egypt.

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 is describing 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.

Mural of Ramesses II triumphing over the Nubians, Temple of Beit El-Wali, Egypt.

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.

Statue of Wepwawetemhat, Asyut, Egypt.

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

Coffin of Tanetcharoe, Saqqara, Egypt.

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

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’

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

Musicians, tomb of Rekhmire (TT100), Egypt.

A key part of “Black Hebrew Israelite” doctrine lies in their interpretation of the curses of Deuteronomy 28. They insist that these curses must find a fulfillment in recent historical memory and in the present day. If they had a complete knowledge of Israel’s history they would realize that all of these curses were fulfilled almost 2,000 years ago beginning with the Assyrian captivity of Israel, followed by the Babylonian captivity of Judah, the Macedonian occupation of Judaea and ending with the Roman occupation.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that the bondage in Egypt described in Deuteronomy 28.68 was fulfilled in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and that Egypt in this verse is an allegory for America, 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. Thus Deuteronomy 28.68 was fulfilled that none would buy the Israelite slaves (something which cannot be said of the trans-Atlantic 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. Titus also sent many of them into the provinces, to be slain in the theatres by beasts and the sword.”
-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

This interpretation clearly fails as the Scriptures make it clear that the 400 years was fulfilled long ago (Acts 7.6-17), but we will continue to scrutinize their interpretations further. They claim that they are currently in that land awaiting liberation, but the fact is that the Portugese began the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1526 (Greta Weber, Shipwreck Shines Light on Historic Shift in Slave Trade, National Geographic Society June 5, 2015). If they were to be liberated after 400 years that should’ve occurred in 1926. 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.

While we might reconcile the apparent contradictions in the text of Genesis and Exodus by consulting the writings of St. Paul, Exodus 12.40 in the Masoretic Text appears to confound this where it reads “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” (King James). However when we consult the elder Greek text of the Septuagint we read “the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.” (Brenton’s Septuagint). This reading aligns much better with the information found in Genesis, Exodus and Galatians.

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

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that Deuteronomy 28.46 means that the curses must be in effect today.

“46And these things shall be signs in thee, and wonders among thy seed for ever [owlam, H5769, aionos, G165];

47because thou didst not serve the Lord thy God with gladness and a good heart, because of the abundance of all things.”

However the restoration of Israel is prophecied all throughout the prophets and so we cannot interpret this passage as referring to eternal curses or ones necessarily in effect today. The word rendered “forever” in verse 46 is owlam (H5769) which Strong’s defines thusly.

“always, ancient time, any more, continuance, eternal, for, everlasting, long time,
Or lolam {o-lawm’}; from alam; properly, concealed, i.e. The vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always — alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-))ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare netsach, ad.”

This wide range of uses easily permits an interpretation of Deuteronomy 28.46 which is not in conflict with the promise of the future restoration of Israel; that the curses only continue for a “long time”, or are “lasting” (Strong’s s.v. owlam) but not eternal. Owlam in the Hebrew corresponds in the Greek Septuagint to the clause eos tou aionos (“until the eon”). Aionos is a form of Strong’s H165, aion, meaning “age, course” (Strong’s s.v.), “a cycle of time” (Dodson s.v.) or “period of time, age” (Thayer s.v.). This is wholly amicable to a Biblically consistent interpretation of the curses being long-lasting yet not eternal, and refutes the insistence that Israel must be under the curses of Deuteronomy 28 to this day.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” interpret Luke 21.24 as evidence that Israel is still under the curses.

“And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the nations, until the times of the nations be fulfilled.”

They insist that the captivity must endure until Jerusalem is no longer trodden upon by Arabs and Jews, however this is an obvious misreading of the text which only mentions chronological parameters for how long the nations would tread upon Jerusalem. Not how long the captivity of the Judaeans would endure. This is clearly stated in plain language in the verse and the “Black Hebrew Israelites” are clearly practicing eisegesis here and denying that Israel has recieved the blessings of the New Covenant.

In Galatians 3 St. Paul clearly informed his readers that they were redeemed from the curse of the Law of Moses. This can only be a reference to the curses of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26:

“10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them [Deuteronomy 27.26].

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.”
-Galatians 3

https://christogenea.org/podcasts/christian-foundations

St. James said “whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (James 1.25) Moses wrote “Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy barns and thy stores. Cursed shall be the offspring of thy body, and the fruits of thy land, the herds of thine oxen, and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shalt thou be in thy coming in, and cursed shalt thou be in thy going out.”

St. Paul says “God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work” (2 Corinthians 9.8). Moses wrote “The Lord send upon thee want, and famine, and consumption of all things on which thou shalt put thy hand, until he shall have utterly destroyed thee, and until he shall have consumed thee quickly because of thine evil devices, because thou hast forsaken me.” (Deuteronomy 28.20). Clearly the “Black Hebrew Israelites” are not on the same page as God. In fact they’re not even in the same book.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” invariably see themselves as been in bondage to this day and claim that the supposed 400 years of slavery is not yet complete. The absurdity of this belief can not be overstated. Of all races in America, blacks receive the most assistance in terms of welfare, food stamps and other subsidized services per capita.

https://www.nap.edu/read/9719/chapter/8#170

They have the lowest employment rate and a very high standard of living (globally speaking) despite that. For the African American to complain that they are exploited for labour today in America is utterly laughable and demonstrably false. They should actually be thankful that they were born in America and not in West Africa so that they can experience all the comforts and joys of first world civilization, largely at the expense of the White man.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/237917/us-unemployment-rate-by-race-and-ethnicity/

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” racial theory.

Among “Black Hebrew Israelites” there are many diverse and nonsensical views of race. We cannot discuss them all here as they are endless and vary widely from camp to camp. African Americans, being a mongrelized people as they are, and rejecting all established racial science as White supremacist propaganda, they are extremely confused about race and look for kinship among diverse races such as the Arabs, Amerindians, Australian aborigines, Indians and mestizos. They have very loose standards regarding racial distinctions and welcome quite racially diverse people into their midst.

Ben Ammi Ben Israel, an influential figure in the formative stages in BHI history and likely crypto-Jew.

Part of this is simply the nature of a unintelligent and mongrelized race; the subconscious desire to integrate with higher races that they might acquire more desirable physical and intellectual traits, however something else is at work here. Many prominent figures among the “Black Hebrew Israelites” are of partial mestizo heritage or other mysterious but obvious non-black heritage, and of course many mestizos are of Edomite Jewish “converso” descent.

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” historical teachings tying the Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite Jews of Iberia and Latin America to West Africa.

Some “Black Hebrew Israelites” are obvious crypto Jews that any Jew-savvy Adamite would recognize as Jews on sight, and we can only marvel that their peers consider them black. This acceptance of mestizos and other assorted mongrels among “Black Hebrew Israelites” is a convenient 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

A crypto-Jewish member of ISUPK New York (L).

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, pedophilic ritual murder and betrayals such as that at the gates of Toledo.

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” historical teachings tying the African Americans to the mongrelized Kenite-Canaanite-Edomite Jews of Iberia and North and West Africa.

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/

Yahweh Ben Yahweh, the founder of The Nation of Yahweh and likely crypto-Jew.

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.

There is one final point I will leave my readers with: the Gospel was first and foremost intended for Judah and Israel. This is clear in many places in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

“22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from those borders having come out cried out saying “Pity me, Master, Son of David! My sick daughter is possessed by a demon!” 23 But He did not respond to her a word. And coming forth His students begged Him saying: “Dismiss her, for she cries out from behind us!” 24 Then replying He said: “I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel!””
-Matthew 15

“19He sends his word to Jacob, his ordinances and judgments to Israel.
20He has not done so to any other nation; and he has not shewn them his judgments.”
-Psalm 147

“8 Censuring them He says: “Behold, days are coming, says Yahweh, and I will consummate for the house of Israel and for the house of Judah a new covenant. 9 Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day of my taking hold of their hand to lead them out from the land of Egypt; because they did not abide by My covenant, I then disregarded them, says Yahweh. 10 For this is the covenant which I will devise with the house of Israel after those days, says Yahweh: giving My laws into their minds, I will also inscribe them upon their hearts, and I will be for a God to them, and they shall be for a people to Me.”
-Hebrews 8

“9 But you are an elect race [genos, G1085], a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, so that you should proclaim the virtues for which from out of darkness you have been called into the wonder of His light, 10 who at one time were “not a people” [Hosea 1.10] but now are the people of Yahweh, those who “have not been shown mercy” [Hosea 2.23] but are now shown mercy.”
-1 Peter 2

‘The New Covenant with Israel’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/the-new-covenant-with-israel/

Since the Apostles were clearly bound to bring the Gospel to Israel, this raises an interesting question: why did they go to White people in Southern Europe and Anatolia? Why not sub-Saharan Africa? Why go to Greeks, Galatians, Romans and Scythians etc. instead of Igbos, Bangos, Bubis and Zulus etc.? Why was the Gospel written in Greek (Indo-European) instead of Bantu (Niger-Congo)? Granted, Niger-Congo peoples couldn’t read or write, but still, one would think if they were Israelites the Apostles would’ve made some effort to minister to them. This is not what we find; rather the Apostles ministered to Greeks, Galatians, Romans, Scythians and kindred peoples.

“1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.”
-1 Peter 1

“11 Where there is neither Greek nor Judean, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”
Colossians 3.11

“There is neither Judean nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3.28

“18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the nations sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.”
-1 Corinthians 10

“1 Now I do not wish you to be ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all had passed through the sea. 2 And all up to Moses had immersed themselves in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all had eaten the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank of an attending spiritual rock, and that rock was Christ.”
-1 Corinthians 10

“1 Now I say, for as long a time as the heir is an infant, he differs not at all from a bondman, being master of all; 2 but he is subject to guardians and stewards until a time appointed by the father. 3 Just as we also, when we were infants, we were held subject under the elements of the society. 4 And when the fulfillment of the time had come, God had dispatched his Son, having been born of a woman, having been subject to law, 5 in order that he would redeem those subject to law, that we would recover the position of sons. 6 And because you are sons, God has dispatched the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying Father, Father. 7 So you are no longer a bondman but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.”
Galatians 4

“27 For it is written, “Be gladdened barren who is not bearing; break fourth and shout, she who is not travailing; because many more are the children of the desolate than of she who has the husband.” 28 And we, brethren, down through Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to flesh had persecuted him according to Spirit, so also now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the servant woman and her son, for by no means shall the son of the servant woman inherit along with the son of the free.” 31 Well, brethren, we are not children of a servant woman, but of the free.”
Galatians 4

“16 Therefore from of the faith, that in accordance with favor, then the promise is to be certain to all of the offspring, not to that of the law only, but also to that of the faith of Abraham, who is father of us all; 17 (just as it is written, “That a father of many nations I have made you,”) before God whom he trusted, who raises the dead to life, and calls things not existing as existing; 18 who contrary to expectation, in expectation believed, for which he would become a father of many nations according to the declaration, “Thus your offspring will be:” 19 and he not being weak in the faith, nor having considered his own body by this time being dead, being about a hundred years old, and the deadness of the womb of Sara, 20 but at the promise of God he did not doubt in disbelief, rather he was strengthened in faith, giving honor to God, 21 and having full satisfaction that what He has promised, He is also capable of doing; 22 for that reason also “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Romans 4

‘The Dispersions of Israel: the Danaans and Dorians’

https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2020/04/20/the-dispersions-of-israel-the-danaans-and-dorians/

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

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

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

https://christogenea.org/essays/herodotus-scythians-persians-prophecy

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

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

Who Killed Jesus?

‘Christ Brought before Caiaphas’, Salvin Hours.

For centuries Christians considered the Jews to be the primary guilty party involved in the crucifixion. Whether we consider the New Testament, ante-Nicaean Christian works like Peri Pascha or the Gospel of Peter, post-Nicaean Christian works like Chrysostom’s Adversus Judaeos, later Protestant works such as Martin Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies or any of the other popular historical Christian writings which addressed the matter, the narrative is clear and consistent: the Jews killed Jesus.

The recent phenomenon of “Judeo-Christianity” has led to politically fuelled revisionism of the orthodox Christian position on this matter. The Jews have been traditionally viewed in Christian culture as a cursed people guilty of murder and blasphemy throughout their generations, but in recent times they have been reimagined as a benevolent chosen people whose only fault is a rebellious streak regarding their spiritual fidelity. “Judeo-Christianity” and “Christian Zionism” have effectively inverted the historical and orthodox Christian position concerning the Jewry.

This new image of the Jew requires some incredible mental gymnastics from the “Judeo-Christian”. This is especially true when it comes to the matter of responsibility for the crucifixion. The Jews and their lackeys point the finger at the Romans, but as we shall see, this is not at all consistent with Scripture. The Biblical narrative consistently places the blame on the people of Judaea and we will establish this here with three witnesses. First I shall cite St. Paul’s first epistle to the Thessalonians. Here St. Paul clearly states that the people of Judaea killed Jesus:

“14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Judeans:

15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:

16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.”
-1 Thessalonians 2

Here in Matthew chapter 27 the Judaean masses cry out for Jesus’ blood and willingly embrace responsibility for the death of the Son of God:

“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.”
-Matthew 27

Here in Acts chapter 4 St. Peter addresses the “rulers of the people and elders” of Judaea (verses 5-8). Here he unequivocally states that they were the ones who had crucified Jesus:

“10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.”
-Acts 4

When Jesus spoke to Pilate He told him “he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.” (John 19.11) Pilate declared Jesus to be blameless (John 18.38-39, 19.4-6) and washed his hands of the sentence (Matthew 27.24). The Judaean elders twisted Pilate’s arm by saying that to deny their demand would constitute rebellion against Caesar (John 19.12), implying that a riot would be incited and they would blame Pilate before Caesar. Only when threatened in such a manner did Pilate accede to allow Christ to be crucified.

When the Roman soldiers were in the process of crucifying the prisoners Jesus said “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23.33-34). It is very clear from the Gospel accounts that the Judaean elders and rulers were primarily responsible for the crucifixion and that any Roman role was secondary. In contrast the people of Judaea accepted the blood guilt upon themselves and their descendants (Matthew 27.25).

While God’s focus shifted from the remnant of Judah to the 12 tribes of Israel and the remnant of Adam, the Romans became instrumental in fulfilling God’s will and obtained great favour. Two righteous Roman centurions appear in Scripture exhibiting great faith and receiving great blessings through Christ (Matthew 8.5-13, Acts 10). The Romans under Titus destroyed the temple in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel (9.26), a destiny which was known to St. Paul.

Closing his epistle to the Romans St. Paul states that “your obedience is come abroad unto all men” (vs. 19) and tells the Romans that “the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” (vs. 20) This can only foretell the Roman destruction of the temple and the vengeance of Christ upon the synagogue of Satan. Ostensibly while God was punishing Judaea for their persecution and murder of Jesus He was showing his favour to Rome.

It is now necessary to discuss some important historical events that shaped 1st century Judaea which are largely unknown to most Christians. The kingdom of Judah was founded by the Israelites of the tribes of Judah, Benjamin and Levi, but these Israelites struggled to maintain ethnic integrity in their lands. Despite the constant chastisement of the prophets the people of Judah gradually mingled with the cursed peoples of Canaan.

‘Fornication, Adultery and Idolatry: a Biblical Case Against Miscegenation and Multiculturalism’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/fornication-adultery-and-idolatry-a-biblical-case-against-miscegenation-and-multiculturalism/

By the time of Christ Judaea was a multi-racial state inhabited by a diverse population made up not only of Israelites, but also of a variety of alien tribes including the cursed Kenites, Canaanites and Edomites. There were also great numbers of mongrels born of mixed unions between these alien tribes and the Israelites. That Christ’s adversaries were generally of such degenerate stock is evident throughout the Bible. These cursed peoples are variously refered to in Scripture as a “race of vipers”, “antichrists”, “vessels of wrath” and “the synagogue of Satan”. These alien intruders into Judah are the racial bedrock of modern Jewry.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Kenite, Canaanite and Edomite Jews’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/11/21/the-satanic-origins-of-the-kenite-canaanite-and-edomite-jews/

These are the protagonists of the entire Biblical narrative. By the time of Christ they had not only fully integrated into the Judaean population and intermarried extensively with the Judaeans, but had even risen to the heights of power under the Romans. The client king of Judaea, Herod the Great, was in fact an Edomite by birth (Josephus, Antiquities 14.3, 12.8 et al.) and was the first to make an attempt on Jesus’ life (Matthew 2.1-16). Later on Herod’s desire came to pass and Jesus was brought to Golgotha at the behest of the Judaean authorities.

Herod the Great was the first upon who the Romans had bestowed the title “king of the Judaeans” (Josephus, Wars of the Judaeans 1.14.4). Later Pilate, mocking the bloodthirsty Judaean leaders, bestowed this title on Jesus, much to the chagrin of the Judaeans (John 19.19-22).

Addressing some of his Judaean detractors in John chapter 8, Jesus says “If God were your Father, ye would love me” (vs. 42) and tells them “Ye are of your father the devil” (vs. 44). He further explains that “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (vs. 47). These Judaeans did not become the devil’s offspring because of their disbelief; rather their disbelief was an outward reflection of their Satanic origin.

Jesus said to his opponents that “ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep” (John 10.26). He did not say that they were not his because they did not heed Him, but that they did not heed Him because they were not his to begin with. They were simply not the intended recipients of his message and were naturally opposed Him. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Of course not. A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit by which we know them! (Matthew 7.16-20)

Writing the 9th chapter of his epistle to the Romans regarding certain Judaeans who rejected the Gospel, St. Paul says “Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel” (vs. 6). Verses 7-13 show that the true children of Israel are descended from Abraham down through Isaac and Jacob-Israel and not Esau-Edom. St. Paul then quotes a condemnation of Edom from Malachi 1.2. St. Paul is not making incoherent disjointed statements here nor is he speaking in cryptic allegories. Rather St. Paul was acutely aware of the fact that there was a large population of Edomites in Judaea opposing the Gospel.

In Romans chapter 11 St. Paul speaks of other disbelieving Judaeans which may be contrasted with the false Israelites of Romans 9. He tells us these Judaean heretics were still part of Jacob (vs. 26) and “beloved for the father’s sakes” (vs. 28). In contrast, the false Israelites of Romans 9 are not counted among Israel (vs. 6). Paul is not contradicting himself in the ways he regards these different Judaeans. The false Israelites of Romans 9 are no mere heretics within the Israelite race; rather they were the illicit converts and mongrels of Judaea.

While it cannot be reasonably questioned that the people of Judaea were responsible for the crucifixion, it must be said that this guilt is shared by both the Edomite, Canaanite and Kenite infiltrators and the true blooded Israelites who denied him (Acts 2.22-24, 7.51-53, 2 Thessalonians 2.14-16, et al.). Both groups were in the crowd when they said “His blood be on us, and on our children.” (Matthew 27.25). For the true Israelites in Judaea this blood might wash away their sin, and many joined the early Church becoming an integral part of Christendom. For the unrepentant wicked brood among them his blood marked them with the guilt of deicide which they bear to this day.

The Noahite Nations: the Shemites

‘Noah and His Family Before the Embarkment into the Ark’
-Hans Jordaens III

The name Shem (Strong’s H8034 and H8035) denotes “an appellation, as a mark or memorial of individuality; by implication honor, authority, character” (Strong’s s.v. Shem), “a good name or reputation” or “a celebrated name, fame” (Gesenius’ s.v. Shem). Accordingly Shem was the forebear of God’s elect Adamic lineage from whom sprang Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and, ultimately, Jesus Christ. Not only did the elect descend from Shem, but other Shemitic nations likewise found esteem, authority and fame which was allotted to their father.

There are many misconceptions about the Biblical Shemites which have coalesced into an erroneous modern idea of the Semite as something no credible ancient writer ever conceived of. Many scholars seek to define them as one specific linguistic group, speakers of the so-called “Semitic” language family, but this approach is absolutely contrary to the historical and Biblical records. Nothing in Scripture indicates that the Noahites were dispersed in an orderly manner with genealogies corresponding to languages and so I will not be restricting my research to any one linguistic group.

Ancient interpreters of Scripture such as Josephus or Hippolytus never conceived of unified languages among the Japhetic, Hamitic and Shemitic tribes and for good reason. As we shall see in this essay, the Shemites vastly transcend the “Semitic” language group and the broader Afro-Asiatic family of languages, forming a number of prolific Indo-European speaking tribes and at least one linguistic isolate.

Much of the seed of Shem came to be mingled with non-Adamic and mixed races at an early time producing bastards such as many modern Arabs, Syrians, Afghans, Iranians and Indians. Nonetheless, we can be certain that the Shemites originated as stock which we would today recognize as Aryan or Europoid, the unadulterated epitome of the Caucasoid race.

‘Physical Descriptions 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/

Ancient scholars associated Shem with unquestionably White peoples such as the ancient Armenians, Lydians, Paeonians, Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Arians, Hyrcanians, Parthians, Scythians and Germans (Hyppolytus, Chronica 190, Josephus, Antiquities 1.6.4). All of these tribes were certainly Aryan, and evidently these ancient interpreters believed that Shem had sired them.

The vast majority of the various Adamic peoples in Asia and Africa were at one time or another mixed with primitive aboriginal races, deteriorating into the modern populations of most of West, Central and South Asia as well as North and East Africa. To imagine that the founders of high civilization in these lands were identical to their descendants is a naive and inaccurate view of history. As the remnant of the Adamic race watches its once glorious nations fall into decay through miscegenation and population replacement we ought to reflect on the past cycles of our race which we see reoccurring in the present day.

The Shemites dwelt generally in Western Asia, their early habitations stretching from Anatolia to India and from Arabia to the Caucasus. We find one helpful clue to identify the settlements of the Shemites in a prophecy from the patriarch Noah where he says “May God make room for Japheth, and let him dwell in the habitations of Sem” (Genesis 9.27). We must therefore seek the Shemites largely in the vicinity of the Japhethites.

Elam.

Flavius Josephus tells us of Shem’s firstborn; “Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians” (Antiquities 1.6.4). Wherever we see Elam in Biblical prophecy, we find the Persians fulfilling their role in history, for instance Isaiah 13 and 21. We consistently find mention of Elam along with the Iranic tribe of Madai or the Medes at Jeremiah 25.25, Daniel 5.28, 6.8-15, and Acts 2.9 indicating their proximity, a fulfillment of Noah’s prophecy at Genesis 9.27.

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

We might simply conclude that the Achmaenid Persians were the descendants of Elam, however the reality seems to be a bit more complex. Ancient Iran was host to the state known today as Elam which predates the emergence of the Persians as a distinct ethnic group by centuries. In the Elamite’s own tongue they refered to their nation as haltamti while in Akkadian the nation was known as elamtu. Teispes, son of Achaemenes, conquered Elamite Anshan in the mid 7th century BC and from that time onward Elam was gradually absorbed into the rising Achmaenid empire.

The Encyclopedia Iranica informs us: “The rise of the Achaemenid empire brought an end to the existence of Elam as an independent political power but not as a cultural entity. Indigenous Elamite traditions (e.g., the use of the title “king of Anshan” by Cyrus (q.v.); the “Elamite robe” worn by Cambyses (q.v.) and seen on the famous winged genii at Pasargadae; some glyptic styles; the use of Elamite as the first official language of the empire; and the persistence of Elamite religious personnel and cults supported by the crown formed an essential part of the newly emerging Achaemenid culture in Fārs.” (Elizabeth Carter, Elam II: The Archeology of Elam, Encyclopaedia Iranica vol. 3 pp. 313-325)

Cambridge World Archaeology states: “There is much evidence, both archaeological and literary/epigraphic, to suggest that the rise of the Persian empire witnessed the fusion of Elamite and Persian elements already present in highland Fars” (The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State, Cambridge World Archaeology ch. 9). Certainly the Elamites must’ve remained a considerable element in Persian society and it seems that on account of this Elam was retained as the prophetic Hebrew name for Persia. Josephus was indeed correct in identifying Elam as an ancestor of many of the Persians of his day, though his explanation may be a bit too simplistic.

Asshur.

Josephus informs us that “Ashur lived at the city of Nineveh; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation, beyond others” (Antiquities 1.6.4). This matches Genesis 10.11-12 where we find the description of the Cushitic empire of Nimrod centered in Mesopotamia which is there given as the region from which Asshur first expanded. In the Septuagint Ashshuwr (Strong’s H804) is rendered as Ασσυρίους/Assyria. It is worth noting that Josephus doesn’t necessarily count Asshur as the progenitor of those called Assyrians but only as their ruler. Undoubtedly early Assyria incorporated diverse peoples including former subjects of Nimrod’s empire.

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

While Asshur himself was undoubtedly of the same unadulterated Caucasoid stock as his Noahite brethren, it seems that the imperialism of Assyria brought calamity upon their race. Despite Assyria’s foundation as an Adamic nation it is evident from Scripture that Assyria was racially corrupted at an early time and thus was counted as a nation that Israel was forbidden to mingle with (Ezekiel 16.28, Jeremiah 2.18, 36).

Eventually Assyria would serve as the means by which God would punish Israel, leading them into captivity (1 Kings 14.5, 2 Kings 15.29, 17.6, 18.11, 1 Chronicles 5.26, Josephus, Antiquities 10.9.7 et al.). It seems that the tables were turned when the Israelite Scythians of the Assyrian captivity subjugated a portion of the Assyrians, removing them to the Southern shore of the Black Sea.

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

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

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” (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 2.43.5-7).

Lud.

We are informed by Josephus that “Laud founded the Laudites, which are now called Lydians.” (Antiquities 1.6.4). In the Septuagint at Ezekiel 27.10 and 30.5 Luwd (H3865) is translated as Λυδοί/Lydians. We might also reasonably associate Lud with the Luwians, the predecessors of the Lydians, as both groups were related peoples speaking closely related Indo-European languages of the Anatolian family. Given the geographical proximity, linguistic relation and the phonetic similarities between the names Luwd, Luwiya and Lydia, there seems little reason to doubt that the Biblical Ludites represent both groups.

Herodotus (Histories 1.94), Strabo (Geography 5.2.2) and Tacitus (Annals of Rome 4.52 ff.) all state that the Etruscans were originally Lydians who departed Lydia under king Tyrsenus in response to famine. While this account of Etruscan origins has been met by scholars with some skepticism, recent linguistic research may support the Lydian-Etruscan connection.

The Tyrsenian language theory links the Lemnian/Tyrrhenic language of the Eastern Aegean with Etruscan and Rhaetian (see Helmut Rix, Rätisch und Etruskisch, Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck and Stefan Schumacher, Sprachliche Gemeinsamkeiten zwischen Rätisch und Etruskisch, Der Schlern, 72:90–114). The Tyrsenian languages may be related to the Anatolian family of Indo-European languages spoken by the Lydians and Luwians (Dieter H. Steinbauer, Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen, St. Katharinen).

An alternative interpretation of the linguistic data and the accounts related by Herodotus, Strabo and Tacitus might be that the Etruscans under Tyrsenus came from the land of Lud in Anatolia while they actually descended from one of the Japhethic tribes, perhaps Thiras or Tarshish (consider Hippolytus of Rome, Chronica 71 where Tarshish is given as the father of the Tyrrhenians). Perhaps they were a fusion of Ludites and Japhethites. In any case we find another fulfillment of Genesis 9.27 with the cohabitation of Shemites and Japhethites in Anatolia and perhaps Italy.

Aram, Uz, Hul, Gether and Mash.

Throughout Scripture Aram is the Hebrew name for Syria, the Northerly neighbours of the Israelites. Josephus tells us “Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians” (Antiquities 1.6.4). In the Eblaite or Paleo-Syrian language Armi was the name of modern day Aleppo in Syria, known in Akkadian as Arman. Throughout the Septuagint Aram (Strong’s H758) is translated as Συρία/Syria. There seems to be some confusion concerning the name Syria in ancient times, or perhaps the Greeks purposely used the term to describe a broader region than just the land of Aram.

Palestine was regarded sometimes as a part of Syria (Herodotus, Histories 7.89) and Herodotus also refers to certain Cappadocians “who dwell about the rivers Thermôdon and Parthenius” as Syrians (ibid. 2.104). Some writers, including Strabo, sometimes mistook Assyrians for Syrians (Geography 16.1.3) due to the similarity of the names in Greek.

Strabo tells us that the Cappadocians “have to the present time been called ‘White Syrians’, as though some Syrians were black” (ibid. 16.1.2). We might thus infer that, as far as Strabo was concerned, the Syrians as a whole could be described as white. The tomb of Rekhmire in Thebes (Theban Tomb TT100) contains murals depicting red haired Syrian tribute bearers. The ancient Syrians left behind many funerary reliefs depicting themselves. These clearly display the Europoid features of the offspring of Aram. In the Anatolian city of Edessa some funerary mosaics have been discovered which depict pale and sometimes grey-eyed Aramaeans.

‘White Ancient Aram’ https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2020/05/12/white-ancient-aram/

Even today many Syrians still exhibit clear Europoid features while some could even pass as European and might be reasonably described as white.

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

In 2 Kings 16.9 and Amos 1.3 we learn that the Assyrians took a portion of the Syrians captive, removing them to Kir (Strong’s H7024), which seems to correspond to the region of the Kura river basin (Gesenius’ s.v Qiyr) which spans parts of Anatolia, Georgia and Azerbaijan. Josephus tells us that the Assyrians “transplanted the people of Damascus into Upper Media” (Antiquities 9.2.3). Pliny the Elder tells us of the Scythians that “The more ancient writers give them the name of Aramii” (Natural History 6.19) and names one tribe of the Scythians as Arimaspi (ibid.).

The Israelites of the Assyrian captivity had been deported to Media by the Assyrians just as these Syrians had and they later extensively settled in Armenia founding the district of Sacasene. The Israelites, being related to the Syrians and having moved into the same regions of Media and the Caucasus, it should not be surprising at all if the Syrians migrated out of the Near East along with the Israelites forming a portion of the Scythian tribes as the Arimaspi.

The Israelites were sometimes regarded by the Greeks as Syrians (for instance compare Herodotus, Histories 2.159 and 2 Chronicles 35.20) and Palestine was regarded sometimes as a part of Syria (Histories 7.89) so it should be no surprise that ancient writers would call the Scythians Aramii as Pliny the Elder states.

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

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

Josephus informs us that “Uz founded Trachonitis and Damascus: this country lies between Palestine and Celesyria.” (Antiquities 1.6.4). This identification is probable, there being a land named for Uz in the vicinity of the Levant (Jeremiah 25.20, Lamentations 4.21) and certainly many of the Aramites settled in Syria.

It is evident that some of the Aramites must have spread further North. Josephus explains that “Ul [Hul] founded Armenia” (Antiquities 1.6.4). In the War Scroll (4Q492 in the Dead Sea Scrolls, column 2 verse 11) we read “they shall fight against the rest of the sons of Aramea: Uz, Hul, Togar, and Mesha, who are beyond the Euphrates”. As I have explained in my essay on the Japhethites, Togarmah is to be sought in Armenia and Meshech in Russia.

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

In light of the oracle at Genesis 9.27 we should not be surprised to find Uz and Hul alongside Togarmah and Meshech in the region of Armenia. This is further supported by Amos 9.7 which places the early Aramites in Kir in the Caucasus region (Gesenius’ s.v. Qiyr).

The phrase “Beyond the Euphrates” used in the War Scroll is also found several times in the writings of Josephus, notably once in his Antiquities of the Judeans (11.133) and once in the preface to the Wars of the Judeans. In the preface to Wars the phrase describes those “with the Adiabeni”, Adiabene consisting of the plains beyond the Tigris bordering Babylonia to the South, Armenia to the North and Media in the East.

In Antiquities “beyond the Euphrates” describes the domain of the 10 tribes of Israel who had been deported to Media and far Northern Mesopotamia by the Assyrians. This general region in the Northern part of Western Asia in which the War Scroll seems to place the Uzzites fits well within the broader domain of the Aramites.

In Hebrew Hul is correctly pronounced as Chuwl (see Strong’s spelling in his entry for H2343). Samuel Bochart offers the probable identification of Hul/Chuwl with Cholobetene in the vicinity of Armenia (Phaleg 2.9). We might also associate Hul with other similar place names in the vicinity of Armenia such as Cholus, Cholua, Choluata, Cholima, Colsa, Colana and Colchis (Ptolemy, Geography 1.5.13).

Aram (H758) means “the highland” (Strong’s s.v.), yet Syria proper can hardly be described as a highland region. The etymology of the name Armenia is uncertain, but I might propose that it derives from Aram in reference to the Armenian Highlands. Armenia is certainly better suited to the meaning “highland” than Syria. Since Amos 9.7 places the early Aramites in the Caucasus region, it seems plausible that Aram’s name might be left to that country. The pseudepigraphic (but ancient) book of Jubilees reports that all the mountains of Ararat were allotted to Shem (Jubilees 8.21), specifically Aram (ibid. 9.5).

Concerning Gether Josephus wrote “Gather [founded] the Bactrians” (Antiquities 1.6.4). While no other evidence that I am aware of directly associates Gether with the Bactrians, I believe there is good reason to give further thought to this identification by Josephus. In the vicinity of the other Aramites we find the ancient Guti people who swept out of the Zagros Mountains and overran Mesopotamia following the collapse of the Akkadian Empire near the end of the 3rd millennium BC.

W.B. Henning suggested that the different endings of Gutian king names resemble case endings found in the Tocharian languages, a branch of Indo-European known from a corpus of texts found in the Tarim Basin in China. This would make Gutian the earliest attested Indo-European language. Henning further suggested that these Gutians had subsequently migrated to the Tarim Basin (see The First Indo-Europeans in History, In Ulmen, Society and History, Essays in Honour of Karl August Wittfogel, The Hague: Mouton).

Gamkrelidze and Ivanov later explored Henning’s suggestion, as possibly supporting their proposal of an Indo-European Urheimat in the Near East (see The First Indo-Europeans in History: the Proto-Tocharians in Asia Minor, Journal of Ancient History 1:14–39 and Indo-European Homeland and Migrations: Half a Century of Studies and Discussions, Journal of Language Relationship 9:109–136).

The Tocharians were an ancient tribe dwelling in the vicinity of Bactria (Ptolemy, Geography 6.11.6). Evidently Strabo counted the Tocharians as a tribe of the Scythians (Geography 11.8.2), but as explained earlier in this essay, the Greeks sometimes confused Aramites and Scythians. Taken all together the available information seems to indicate that the Getherites were the Gutians who later gave rise to the Tocharian tribes that settled in Bactria and the Tarim Basin. While the Tocharians were not precisely Bactrians per se, Josephus’ statement about Gether is not without merit.

Josephus writes “Mesa [founded] the Mesaneans; it is now called Charax Spasini” (Antiquities 1.6.4). Charax Spasinu was the capital of Characene, otherwise known as Mesene. Presumably Josephus percieved him to be the forebear of the inhabitants of Durine, the Persian settlement at the site of the later Hellenistic city of Charax Spasinu. We might perhaps associate the sons of Mash with the Persian tribe of the Maspii (Herodotus, Histories 1.101, 125). Like his brothers and cousins, Mash may have settled further North and West as well, perhaps settling about Mount Masius in the extreme North of Mesopotamia (Strabo, Geography 6.14.2, Pliny the Elder, Geography 5.18.2) as proposed by Bochart (Phaleg 2.2).

Herodotus informs us that the Mysians were kindred of the Lydians (Histories 1.171) and Strabo informs us that many in his day regarded the Mysians as Lydians (Geography 12.8.3). Strabo also tells us that the Mysian language was at least partially derived from Lydian (ibid.) As explained earlier, the Lydians were descendants of Lud, the uncle of Mash. It seems not improbable that some of the sons of Mash may have settled in Anatolia with Lud.

Quite near the Taurus Mountains, the city of Mazaca (modern Kayseri in Anatolia) was said in Armenian tradition to have been founded by and named after Mishak, a cousin and general of the patriarch Aram (William Francis Ainsworth, Travels and Research in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, and Armenia, John W. Parker, West Strand pp. 222-223). Perhaps this account contains a memory of an Aramite presence in the region.

Arphaxad, Cainan, Salah, Eber and Peleg.

Arphaxad is the most elusive of Shem’s sons, but since Arphaxad sired the Hebrews and Israelites the Bible contains a wealth of detailed information about some of his descendants. Josephus tells us that “Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans” (Antiquities 1.6.4), but the usefulness of this information is very limited.

We know from Biblical genealogies that the “Chaldeans” or Kasdiy were only one late branch of the Arphaxadites (see Genesis 22.20-22 and Strong’s and Gesenius’ entries for Strongs H3777 and H3778). Surely Josephus, a learned Judaean, also knew himself to be a descendant of Arphaxad.

In Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon in the entry for Arpakshad he remarks that it is not improbable that it corresponds to Arrapachitis/Arraphka (proposed by Bochart, Phaleg 2.4) in the Northern reaches of Assyria adjacent to Armenia and Media (Ptolemy, Geography 6.1). He also notes that von-Bohlen compares Arpakshad to the Sanskrit word Arjapakshata meaning “(a land) by the side of Asia” or more properly “by the side of Arya”.

Arrapachitis/Arraphka was a small Hurro-Urartian kingdom in the North Eastern reaches of Mesopotamia near ancient Armenia and Media. The Indo-Iranic Medes were known historically as Aryans (Herodotus, The Histories 7.62) and so the comparison of Arphaxad and Arraphka to Arjapakshata seems most appropriate, Arraphka bordering on Media.

While highly apocryphal, the Book of Jubilees states that Madai had married a daughter of Shem, and preferred to live among Shem’s descendants, rather than to dwell in Japheth’s allotted lands beyond the Black Sea. He begged his brothers-in-law, Elam, Asshur and Arphaxad, and finally received from them the land that was named after him, Media (10.50-51).

Another line in Jubilees (8.5) states that a daughter of Madai named Milcah married Cainan, who is an ancestor of Abraham also mentioned in the Septuagint version of Genesis and in the Gospel of Luke (3.36). Whether or not Jubilees is canonical or accurate, it may be considered an ancient witness to a neighbour and kin relationship between Arphaxadites and the Medes. Another ancient apocryphal source, Judith, features a king of Media named Arphaxad, which also lends support to the Arphaxadite-Mede connection and an Indo-European origin for the name Arphaxad.

While most scholars have sought the Arphaxadites among the “Semitic” speaking peoples of the Near East, there is a great deal of evidence that the Arphaxadites were indeed Hurro-Urartian as the identification with Arraphka would suggest. In Joshua 24.2 and 15 the ancestors of the Israelites are described as being pagans who dwelt “beyond the river”, referring of course to the Euphrates.

As we have seen earlier in this essay when discussing the Aramites, the region “beyond the Euphrates” consistently refers to the Northern regions of Western Asia in the vicinity of the Caucasus and Northern Mesopotamia, a broad region well within the domain of the Hurro-Urartian cultures. There are cultural aspects of Abraham and his kindred possibly indicating a Hurrian cultural origin. This is evident when they are compared to data obtained from the Nuzi tablets, which was first noted by John Bright (A History of Israel, Westminster Press pp. 78-79).

In Hurrian culture property ownership was held by family clans and their household gods and its use was leased to individual family members. Control of the household gods and thus the family property was held by the senior male which explains the importance of the Biblical story of Rebekah’s theft of Laban’s idols (Genesis 31).

A cultural custom unique to the Hurrians was the practice of adopting one’s wife as their sister which had to do with property and marriage laws. This helps to explain the odd occurences where Abraham claims that Sarah is his sister to the Pharaoh in Egypt (Genesis 12.13-19) and to the Philistine king of Gerar (Genesis 20.2-5).

Jacob’s stealing of the birthright from Esau (Genesis 27) finds context in the Hurrian custom whereby the household gods would be passed down in a dying utterance to the eldest son, or sometimes the wife’s brother. It was Rebekah from Harran who instructed Jacob to deceive his father, Isaac by disguising himself as his older brother Esau (Genesis 27.5-13).

Abraham’s fear that his slave Eliezer would be his heir (Genesis 15.1-4) becomes understandable in the light of the Hurrian practice of slave adoption. Childless couples would adopt a son who would serve them as long as they lived and inherit upon their death. Should a natural son be born to them, the adopted son would have to yield the right of inheritance.

According to Hurrian custom a marriage contract obliged the wife, if childless, to provide her husband with a substitute, just as Sarah gave her slave Hagar to Abraham as a concubine (Genesis 16.1-4). Should a son be born of such a union, the expulsion of the slave wife and her child was forbidden. This explains Abraham’s reluctance to send Hagar and Ishmael away (Genesis 21.10-11).

In the case of the stories of Jacob and Laban the Nuzi texts are especially illuminating. The adoption of Jacob by Laban (suggested by Genesis 31.43), the condition laid on him to take no other wives than Laban’s daughters (Genesis 31.50) and the resentment of Leah and Rachel against Laban (Genesis 31.14) are all illustrated by Hurrian customs.

In Genesis 23.6, we read that the Hethites tell Abraham “thou art in the midst of us a king from God; bury thy dead in our choice sepulchres”. The only plausible reason that these Hethites would regard Abraham as royalty is if he belonged to the Indo-European elite which exerted its rule among the Hethites in the Hittite empire and many of the Hurrians such as those of Mitanni.

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

Abraham’s ancestor Terah was said to have come from Harran in Anatolia. At the time that Terah and Abraham dwelt there Harran was a city inhabited mainly by Hurrians and an important Hurrian centre as evidenced in the Nuzi tablets. It seems that Ur Kasdim, the city of Abraham’s nativity, was also a Hurrian city of Anatolia or Syria and not the Southern Mesopotamian city of Urium.

In Genesis 24 Abraham sends Eliezer to the land of his birth. Here we find the sort of ethnic elitism which would be typical of a nomadic Indo-European aristocraticy sojourning in the Levant. Isaac’s son Jacob was likewise expected to marry a woman of his own tribe and to avoid intermarriage with the Hurrian/Horite and Hattian/Hethite lower class, a mistake made by his cursed brother Esau.

“1And Abraam was old, advanced in days, and the Lord blessed Abraam in all things. 2And Abraam said to his servant the elder of his house, who had rule over all his possessions, Put thy hand under my thigh, 3and I will adjure thee by the Lord the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou take not a wife for my son Isaac from the daughters of the Chananites, with whom I dwell, in the midst of them. 4But thou shalt go instead to my country, where I was born, and to my tribe, and thou shalt take from thence a wife for my son Isaac.”

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

Later on in verse 10 we find out where Eliezer went to reach the land of Abraham’s birth; the far North of Mesopotamia (Aram Naharayim). After working for Laban, Jacob passed over the Euphrates back into Canaan (Genesis 31.21). If Ur Kasdim were the Ur in Southern Mesopotamia, then Jacob would not need to cross the Euphrates. Laban lived in Paddan Aram, which is in the region of Haran (Genesis 28.5-7), which seems to be the same area as Aram-Naharaim, Abraham’s homeland (Genesis 24.10).

All this evidence taken together seems to indicate that the Ur Kasdim of Abraham was in the same region as Haran in Syria, and not was not the famous Ur in Southern Mesopotamia. This certainly seems far more plausible than the nomadic pastoral warlord Abraham hailing from the urban commercial hub that was the Southern Ur. Rather the Ur of Abraham’s nativity must be further North, perhaps Urfa in Southern Anatolia or Urkesh in Northern Syria. Though I do not hold their traditions in high regard, the Turks and Jews of Anatolia and the Levant hold an oral tradition that Ur Kasdim is Urfa in Southern Anatolia.

Some skeptics of the Bible suggest that Kasdim in Genesis 11.28 is an anachronistic reference to Chaldaean Babylonia of the 8th century BC. However Ur was almost a ghost town by the 8th century and so a reference to “Ur of the Chaldaeans” makes no historical sense as an alleged 8th century anachronism.

More challenging for this view however is a linguistic problem: there is no lamed in Kasdim, which instead has a sibilant as its second phoneme, whereas the name Chaldaeans is never historically attested without a lamed, or with a sibilant. Attested in the the Nuzi tablets is a personal name; Ka-ši-du meaning “Kassite” which bears far more resemblance to the Hebrew word Kasdim than any form of Chaldaean.

In truth there is no anachronism and the Chaldaeans were merely called Kasdim in later times as they inhabited former Kassite Babylonia. For the same reason we see Chittiy/Hittite in Scripture refers both to the original Hattians and their later Indo-European conquerors who established the Hittite Empire.

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

For similar reasons Abraham is refered to as a Hebrew according to his lineage (Genesis 14.13) while his son Jacob is called an Aramaean according to his dwelling (Deuteronomy 26.5). Abraham’s Hebrew relative Laban was also called an Aramaean according to his habitation (Genesis 31.20, 24) and not his genealogy. Many other examples of such occurrences can be found in Scripture and it is quite common for individuals and even nations to be refered to by geographical handles which may elsewhere be used ethnographically.

Attempts to classify the Kassite language have led to the proposal that it belongs to the Hurro-Urartian family (see Thomas Schneider, Kassitisch und Hurro-Urartäisch. Ein Diskussionsbeitrag zu möglichen lexikalischen Isoglossen, Altorientalische Forschungen 30:372–381).

The Kassites also seem to have often borne Indo-European personal names (see Sir John Lynton Myres, Who Were the Greeks?, University of California Press p. 102, Robert MacHenry, The New Encyclopaedia Britannica: in 32 vol. Macropaedia, India – Ireland, Volume 21, Encyclopedia Britannica p. 36, The Peoples of the Highland: Vanished Cultures of Luristan, Mannai and Urartu, Vanished Civilizations of the Ancient World, McGraw-Hill pg. 24 and Stuart Piggot, Ancient Europe, Transaction Publishers p. 81).

The Mitanni were a group of Indo-Europeans who ruled over a Hurrian population. The Mitanni empire lasted from roughly 1,500 to 1,300 BC and the land of Mitanni in northern Syria extended from the Taurus mountains to its West and as far East as Nuzi and the river Tigris. In the South, it extended from Aleppo across to Mari on the Euphrates in the East. The Mitanni were friendly neighbours of the Kassites. In Egyptian records the Mitanni kingdom is refered to as Naharin from the Assyro-Akkadian word for “river”. It may well be that Mitanni corresponds to Biblical Aram Naharayim (Aram of the two rivers), Abraham’s homeland.

While Cainan is not mentioned in the Masoretic Text, he is to be found in Genesis 10.24 and 11.13 in the Septuagint and Luke 3.36 follows the Septuagint including him in the genealogy of Jesus. If ever there were grounds to doubt the validity of the mention of Cainan in the Septuagint, the support found in the Gospel of Luke should easily erase it. It is also evident elsewhere in the New Testament that Cainan was counted as one of the proclaimers of righteousness, though this is a complex topic beyond the scope of this essay.

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

‘The Origins of the Serpent Seed’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2019/01/27/the-origins-of-the-serpent-seed/

In his work An Universal History, from the Earliest Account of Time: Asiatic History to the Time of Alexander the Great, T. Osborne vol. 5 pg. 291, two ancient sources are cited, informing us that “The Alexandrian Chronicle derives the Sarmatians from Cainan ; Eustachius Antiochenus the Soggodians”. While these identifications do not precisely match, are relatively late and might thus be met with skepticism, I believe there is reason to give them further consideration.

The Sarmatians and Sogdians were related Iranic tribes, both very similar in dress, speech, religion and mode of living and they could easily be confused for one another or any of the other Iranic tribes. The Sarmatians were regarded as an offshoot of the Medes or were perhaps confused with the Medes (Diodorus Siculus, Library of History 2.43.5-7) and as discussed previously concerning Arphaxad, the descendants of Arphaxad and Cainan were certainly tied to the Medes.

According to Jubilees 10.50-51 the Medes dwelt in the lands of Shem and according to Jubilees 8.5 Cainan married Milcah, a Median woman, the mother of Selah. Taken altogether the information seems to support the identification provided by Bochart (Phaleg 1.2) of Selah with the Susians and the city of Sele in Susiana (Ptolemy, Geography 1.6.3) and the association of the sons of Cainan with the Sogdians and Sarmatians.

There is some confusion among many students of Scripture surrounding the term Hebrew found in our Bible. Some associate this term only strictly with the Israelites, but it is evident that this is an error where Abraham, the great grandfather of the first Israelites, is called a Hebrew (Ibriy, H5680, Genesis 14.13). Strongs entry for Ibriy says “Patronymic from Eber [H5677]; an Eberite”.

Eber of course was a son of Arphaxad and grandson of Shem mentioned in Genesis 10 and Abraham’s lineage in Genesis 11. The Israelites are refered to in Scripture as Hebrews on occasion, but the founding Hebrew patriarch Eber predates Israel by many generations, and surely the broader Hebrews must have a history apart from that of Israel.

Throughout the Fertile Crescent inscriptions of the 2nd millennium BC refer to a people known as Habiru or ‘Apiru (the B becoming a P in Egyptian). They are described throughout these inscriptions as nomads, pastoralists, mercenaries, brigands and travelling labourers and they seem to typically sit on the fringes of civilized society. There they either lived as reavers or offered their services as mercenaries and labourers to various peoples of the Fertile Crescent.

The Hebrews of Scripture were a far-reaching people known for their tendency to explore and travel. The Hebrew patriarch Jacob is called a “wandering Aramaean” (obed (Strong’s H6) Arammi (H761)) in Deuteronomy 26.5 in the Hebrew text. In Genesis 14.13 in the Septuagint Abraham is called “Abraham the traveller” (perate, from Strong’s G4009). The King James reads “Abraham the Hebrew” as does Sir Lancelot Brenton’s Septuagint translation showing that both Sir Lancelot Brenton and the Septuagint translators understood Hebrew to mean traveller.

His sojourning through Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Canaan with his hundreds of warriors (most likely Hebrews. Genesis 14.14), large caravan, herds and flocks seems quite in line with the mode of living attributed to the Habiru of profane inscriptions. The Habiru were pastoralists who travelled with their herds and this often contrasted them with their urban Mesopotamian, Hittite and Egyptian neighbours. When performing labour or mercenary services they often recieved their payments in livestock. Likewise the Hebrew patriarchs of Scripture were semi-nomadic pastoralists

The ethnonym Ibriy/Hebrew (Strong’s H5680) derives from Eber (H5676) which Strong’s Concordance defines as “against, beyond, by, from, over, passage … a region across … on the opposite side … against, beyond, by … from, over”. Eber derives from abar (H5674) which Strong’s defines as “alienate … beyond, bring over, through, carry over … to cross over … bring (over, through), carry over”.

Of course such a name would be very fitting for a people such as the Habiru who spread themselves so far and wide, throughout the whole of the Fertile Crescent and beyond. All of these words derive ultimately from the Semitic root ʕ-b-r meaning “beyond”, “other side” or “across”. Among Strong’s many definitions for abar (H5674) are “bring over”, “carry over” or “deliver”. Eber finds a likely Indo-European cognate, or perhaps even a root, in the proto-Indo-European root *bher- (compare to Semitic ʕ-b-r ) meaning “carry a burden”, “bring” or “give birth”.

While it is beyond the scope of this presentation it can be established that the Scythians/Saka were an offshoot of the Habiru/Hebrews. On page 46 of his work Four Old Iranian Ethnic Names (Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften), Oswald Szemerenye offers the definition of “wanderer” or “vagrant nomad” for Saka stemming from the root sak- meaning “go, roam”. It seems likely that Saka is an Iranic translation of the Hebrew name Ibriy (H5680) which bears the same meaning.

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

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

While many Habiru personal names are of Semitic origin, many are of Hurrian and Indo-European origin (see Robert B. Coote, “Hapiru, Apiru”, Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, Eerdmans p. 549-550 and Carol A. Redmount, Bitter Lives, The Oxford History of the Biblical World, Oxford University Press p. 98). More recently analysis of the Tikunani Prism has revealed that the majority of the Habiru bore Hurrian personal names (Thomas Richter, General Studies and Excavations at Nuzi, vol. 10/2, Studies on the Civilization and Culture of Nuzi and the Hurrians, Bethseda, Maryland vol. 9 pp. 125-134).

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, academia.edu). 

The fact that the Habiru had names with varied linguistic roots has been used to support the belief that the Habiru were not ethnically unified and thus not the Biblical Hebrews who claimed common descent from Eber. This position however is ignorant of the Biblical narrative and how it compares to archaeological sources. We know from Scripture that the Hebrews were nomads with varied cultural influences.

The Hebrews in the time of Abraham seem to have been a people without a land to call their own and thus Abraham and his ancestors are found sojourning in Anatolia, Syria and the Levant in the lands allotted to Aram and Canaan. Abraham’s family clearly sat at a cultural crossroads having Semitic names and speech while practicing Hurrian customs. To posit that the varied linguistic roots of Habiru personal names precludes their identification with the Biblical Hebrews is simply to express ignorance of the Biblical narrative in the light of ancient Near Eastern texts.

Like the Indo-Europeans in general, the Hebrews originated as nomadic pastoralists persisting mainly on flocks and herds of sheep and cattle, a lifestyle refered to very frequently in Scripture from the time of Abraham onward. The Hebrews also had dairy as a staple of their diet (Genesis 18.8, 49.12, Deuteronomy 32.13-14, Song of Solomon 5.1, Isaiah 7.22, et al.) indicating lactose tolerance, a trait many scholars associate with the expansion of Indo-European peoples.

The Hebrews employed chariotry in war (Micah 5.10, Isaiah 2.7, 31.1, 2 Samuel 15.1, 1 Kings 4.26, 2 Kings 13.14, 2 Chronicles 1.14 et al.), technology which was first developed and spread by the Indo-Europeans. They were also well acquainted with horsemanship in general (Genesis 47.17, Psalm 32.9, 2 Kings 19.28, Isaiah 28.28, 30.28, 37.29 et al.), a vital part of the lifestyle of the early Indo-Europeans.

The Israelites certainly exhibited Europoid phenotypes which we would expect to see among Indo-Europeans. Artistic depictions show pale and ruddy skin and frequent red or blonde hair. Literary descriptions found in Scripture portray the Hebrews with skin comparable to ivory, milk and snow, eyes like pools of water and red hair, all features one would expect of Indo-Europeans and not the races generally associated today with so-called “Semites”.

‘Physical Descriptions 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 identification of the Habiru with the Hebrews (particularly the Israelite branch) is affirmed by a comparison of the Biblical record of the Hebrew conquest of Canaan with the El-Amarna letters documenting the incursions of the Habiru into Canaan. Abdi-Heba, Egypt’s apointed ruler of Jerusalem in the Amarna period, wrote a series of letters to the Pharaoh in which he complained about the incursions of the Habiru. He was concerned that the Habiru were plundering the lands of the Pharaoh.

“Why do you not hear my call for help? All the governors are lost; the king, my lord, does not have a single governor remaining! Let the king send troops and archers, or the king will have no lands left. … All the lands of the king are being plundered by the Habiru. If archers are here by the end of the year, then the lands of my lord, the king, will be saved, but if the archers are not sent, then the lands of the king, my lord, will be lost.”
-El-Amarna Letter 286

Compare the information in this letter with the following passage found in Joshua 10.1-5. 

“1 Now it came to pass, when Adonizedec king of Jerusalem had heard how Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it; as he had done to Jericho and her king, so he had done to Ai and her king; and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were among them;

2 That they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all the men thereof were mighty.

3 Wherefore Adonizedec king of Jerusalem, sent unto Hoham king of Hebron, and unto Piram king of Jarmuth, and unto Japhia king of Lachish, and unto Debir king of Eglon, saying,

4 Come up unto me, and help me, that we may smite Gibeon: for it hath made peace with Joshua and with the children of Israel.

5 Therefore the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon, gathered themselves together, and went up, they and all their hosts, and encamped before Gibeon, and made war against it.”
-Joshua 10

The Bible states in Joshua 10.26 that Joshua defeated, captured and killed these kings, including the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Zedek. It is very likely that Abdi-Heba and Adoni-Zedek are one in the same man. The reason being is that Adoni-Zedek is actually a title rather than a proper name. Adoni-Zedek means the “Lord of Zedek”, which is similar to the name Melchi-Zedek meaning “King of Zedek”.

Melchi-Zedek was the ruler of Salem according to Genesis 14.18 and so the Hebrews would have associated this title with the prince of Salem, Salem being an early name for the city of Jerusalem. Thus the letters written by Abdi-Heba, concerning the encroachment of the Hebrews, were most likely written by Adoni-Zedek, mentioned in Joshua 10.1, or alternately by Adoni-Bezek, another king mentioned in Judges 1.7 who was defeated by Joshua and buried in Jerusalem.

This next letter is from Shuwardata, governor of Gath, who makes a mention of the chief of the Hebrews, possibly a reference to Joshua himself.

“May the king, my lord, know that the chief of the Habiru has invaded the lands which your god has given me; but I have attacked him. Also let the king, my lord, know that none of my allies have come to my aid, it is only I and Abdi-Heba who fight against the Habiru chief. Zurata, the prince of Accho, and Indaruta, prince of Achshaph, were bribed with fifty chariots by the Habiru so that they would not come to my help; now they are against me. I plead with the king my lord, if you agree, send Yanhamu, and let us quickly go to war, so that the lands of the king, my lord, might be restored to their original boundaries!”
-Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, Princeton University Press p. 487

Shuwardata of Gath is also mentioned in the following letter from Milkilu, a prince of Gezer and ally of Shuwardata.

“Let it be known to the king that there is great hostility against me and against Shuwardata. I ask the king, my lord, protect his land from the approaching Habiru.”
-El-Amarna Letter 271

These two men later seem to have offered allegiance to Joshua in the wake of his conquest as evidenced by a second letter from Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem.   

“See the deed which Milkilu and Shuwardata have done to the land of the king, my lord! They have the troops of Gezer, troops of Gath, and troops of Qeila. They have seized the land of Rubute. The land of the king has fallen away to the Habiri. And now, even a city of the Jerusalem district, Bit-Lahmi [Bethlehem] by name, a city of the king, has fallen away to the side of the people of Qeila. Let the king listen to Er-Heba, your servant, and send an army of archers that they might restore the land of the king to the king. For if there is no army of archers the land of the king will fall away to the Habiri.”
-El-Amarna Letter 290

Many scholars assert that Southern Canaan was not Israelite territory until much later, but as we have seen in the previous letter, the Habiru were active in the region at the time of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan. Chapters 10 to 12 in Joshua record their conquest, with the very names listed in the Amarna letters, including Lachish, Gezer and Gath.

The El-Amarna letter 290 is particularly interesting because though Joshua destroyed  most of  the inhabitants of the cities he subdued, the city of Gath was spared. Joshua 11.22  states: “There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.”. Another letter indicates that the prince of Gezer and the prince of Shechem both surrendered to Joshua during the conquest of Canaan:

 “See the actions taken by Milkilu [prince of Gezer], and the sons of Lab’ayu [princes of Shechem], who have handed over the land to the Habiru.”
-El-Amarna Letter 287

This letter also confirms the Scriptures as these two cities were also spared in Joshua’s conquest, and they are mentioned together in Joshua 21.21. These and many other Amarna letters, from this same time frame, mention cities that had either been conquered by, or were fighting against the enroaching Hebrews. These cities match exactly with the cities Israel had captured as listed in the Book of Joshua and in Judges chapter one. The cities and lands include Lachish, Gezer, Ashkelon, Hazor, Gath, Keilah, Acco, Bethlehem, Gaza, Jerusalem, Achshaph, Carmel, Beth-Shean, Megiddo, Shechem, Makkedah, Ajalon and Zorah.

One of the Amarna letters indicates to us that the Habiru were slaves of the Egyptians as described in Scripture. Here Abdi-Heba uses Habiru in the sense of a social distinction rather than an ethnographic one as the Israelites themselves used the term. Nonetheless he testifies to the fact that the Habiru conquerors of Lachish were indeed former slaves.

“The arm of the mighty king conquers the land of Naharaim and the land of Cush, but now the Habiru have captured the cities of the king … Behold Zimreda, the townsmen of Lachish have smitten him, slaves who had become Habiru.”  
-El-Amarna Letter 288

A scene depicted in the tomb of Puyemre in Thebes (tomb TT39) dating to approximately 1475 BC during the reign of Thutmose III depicts a labourer straining wine. The accompanying inscription reads “straining out wine by the Habiru”. This shows that there were indeed Habiru in Egypt used for menial labour.

There is no extant ancient identification of Peleg with any place or nation, but some modern scholars have connected Peleg with the Pelasgians (Powell, P.E., Father Abraham’s Children, Christopher Publishing House). This identification is affirmed in the oral traditions of the Greek Orthodox Church. This has been met with skepticism on the grounds that Pelasgian appears to have possibly been derived from the Greek words πέλας (“near”) and γ͡ης or γ͡η (“land”) making the Pelasgians “people of the near land” (near to the Ionians). There is however reason to think that the Pelasgians indeed sprang from Peleg.

Strabo tells us “…the Pelasgi were by the Attic people called ‘Pelargi’ [“Storks”], the compilers add, because they were wanderers and, like birds, resorted to those places wither chance led them” (Geography 5.2.4). This description of the Pelasgian mode of life should be compared to the nomadic tendencies of the Hebrews.

Strabo cites other Greek writers who claimed that the Pelasgians came from Thessaly (ibid. 9.5.22), and there we find a people whom Strabo calls Pelagonians (ibid. 9.5.11). The Pelasgians also inhabited the land between two rivers North of Greece, one of which was called Hébros/Έβρος, perhaps after Eber the Hebrew patriarch.

The Pelasgians were said to have “spread throughout the whole of Greece” in ancient times (ibid. 5.2.4), and when the Danaans came from Egypt, they were also called by that name (ibid 8.6.9). While beyond the scope of this essay, it can be demonstrated that the Danaan Greeks were Israelites of the tribe of Dan dispersed from Egypt before the Exodus. The apparently peaceful reception of the Danaans in Greece and the application of the name Pelasgian to their people makes sense if the Pelasgian inhabitants of Greece prior to the arrival of Dan were also Hebrews.

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

Joktan, Almodad, Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, Obal, Abimael, Sheba, Ophir, Havilah and Jobab.

Joktan is commonly regarded as the father of the most ancient and pure lineages of Southern Arabia (Edward Pocock, Specimen Historiae Arabum, Clarendon Press p. 3, 38) where he is known as Kahtan (see Gesenius’ entry for Yoqtan, H3355). The Qahtani of Arabia bear his name to this day. There is a city in the territory of Mecca called Baisath Jektan meaning “the seat of Joktan” (Bochart, Phaleg 1.2).

I regard the claims to Joktanite lineage among the Arabs with some skepticism as Joktan’s name means “he will be made little” (Strong’s), and certainly those claiming descent from him are much too numerous. Nonetheless, we can say with certainty that Joktan settled in Southern Arabia. Today some of his descendants may be found scattered among the mixed races of Arabia, mingled among the Cushites and infused with non-Adamic blood.

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/misconception-arabia-arab-peoples

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707606302

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

Almodad seems to have left his name to the Allumaeotae (Charles Forster, The Historical Geography of Arabia, Duncan and Malcom, vol. 1 pp. 77–175) who Ptolemy places in Arabia Felix (Geography 1.6.7). Arabic writers tell us Almodad had thirty one sons by one woman, but all, excepting two, left Arabia, and settled in India (Edward Pocock, Specimen Historiae Arabum, Clarendon Press p. 40). Most probably they settled there with other descendants of Joktan East of Arabia (Josephus, Antiquities 1.6.4). This matches the claim of Hippolytus that Almodad begat the Indians (Chronica 176).

Bochart identifies Sheleph with the Salapeni of Ptolemy (Phaleg 1.2, Geography 1.6.5). We might also connect Sheleph with the district of Salfie in Arabia (Carsten Niebuhr, Description de l’Arabie, At Utrecht p. 215). Hazarmaveth/Chatzarmaveth seems to have left his name to the Chatramotitae (Pliny the Elder, Natural History 1.6.28), called by Ptolemy Cathramonitae (Geography 1.6.5) and founded a district in South Arabia (Carsten Niebuhr, Description de l’Arabie, At Utrecht pp. 283-294).

I am unable to identify Jerah with any certainty and can only conjecture that Jerah is connected with Yerakh in Yemen (Marásid-al-Ittila s.v. Yerákh). Hadoram may have left his name to the Adramitae of Ptolemy (Geography 1.6.5). Bochart connects him rather with the Drimati mentioned by Pliny the Elder (Phaleg 1.2, Natural History 1.6.28) though I see no reason that Hadoram may not have left his name to both groups.

Uzal might be identified with Azal, an ancient name for Sana’a (Jacob Golias, Lexicon Arabico-Latinum s.v. Sanaa, Gesenius s.v. Uwzal, Strong’s H187). This seems to be the Ausar of Pliny the Elder (Natural History 1.12.16) where was a port he called Ocila (ibid. 1.11.19). This port was called by Ptolemy, Ocelis (Geography 1.6.5).

Diklah is quite elusive and I can only offer the conjecture of Charles Forster that he left his name to an Arab tribe in the region of Arabia Felix called Duklai, which is probably descended from Diklah (Charles Forster, The Historical Geography of Arabia, Duncan and Malcom, vol. 1 p. 115, 147). Obal unfortunately evades me entirely, and I can only conjecture that his posterity must be found among the mingled peoples of Arabia and perhaps India alongside his Joktanite brethren.

Abimael is supposed by Bochart (Phaleg 1.2.24) to be the father of Mali or the Malitae. Theophrastus makes mention of a place called Mali along with Saba, Adramyta, and Citibaena, in Arabia (Historia Plantarum 1.9.4). Gesenius seem to accept this identification provided by Bochart and this seems a very plausible conclusion since Abimael seems to mean “father of Mael” (Gesenius s.v. Abiyma’el, Strong’s H39).

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. The name Seba appears in Josephus as “Sabeus” and Havilah appears to be “Euilat” and it seems that Josephus was attempting to distinguish them from the Cushitic Seba and Havilah with these variant spellings.

I have previously endeavoured to identify the Cushitic Seba and Havilah in my essay on the Hamites but I must state that there is some uncertainty in distinguishing the peoples and places named for these Shemites from those named for the Cushites. Both Cushites and Joktanites have shared the Arabian Peninsula and mingled extensively through the ages. Nonetheless I will try to offer the most probable identifications.

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

While Josephus identifies Seba and Havilah 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). We might then seek Havilah in the vicinity of India, Afghanistan and the neighbouring parts of Asia.

Havilah’s name (Chavilah in Hebrew, Strong’s H2341) might be preserved in the town of Chwala or Chalus on the Iranian coast of the Caspian Sea and the Russian name for the Caspian Sea; Chwalinskoje More. Another name which may be derived from Havilah is Nagar Haveli on India’s West coast North of Mumbai, though a connection to the Cushititic Havilah is equally plausible, this port being as accessible via the Arabian Ocean as it would be via land from Afghanistan. The name of the Kabul river (the river Cophen in Josephus) itself may even derive from Chavilah, the vav in Hebrew often corresponding to a B in other languages.

Sheba and Jobab elude any clear identification, leaving us with only conjecture. The Jobabites may be the Jobarites of Ptolemy in Arabia Felix as proposed by Bochart (Geography 1.6.7, Phaleg 1.2.29). If indeed Bochart is correct, then we may also associate this name with the Jobares river of India (Edwin Francis Bryant, Krishna: a Sourcebook, Oxford University Press US p. 5). Sheba may have passed his name on to the Sibae of India (Ancient India as described by Megasthenes and Arrian, Dr. Schwanbeck and J.W. McCrindle pp. 128–129) and the gulf which Ptolemy calls Sinus Sabaracus (Geography 7.2.4).

Ophir seems to have been located in India. Josephus, speaking of the voyages of the ships of Tarshish under Hiram refers to “the land that was of old called Ophir, but now the Aurea Chersonesus: which belongs to India” (Antiquities 8.6.4). This region is not terribly far from where Josephus places the other Joktanites in Afghanistan in the vicinity of the Kabul river.

In the Septuagint Owphyr (Strong’s H211) is rendered variously as Σωφηρά/Sophera (1 Kings 9.28), Σωφείρ/Sopheir (1 Kings 10.11), Σοφείρα/Sopheira (2 Chronicles 8.18) and Σοφείρ/Sopheir (2 Chronicles 9.10). Josephus renders it Σώφειρα/Sopheira (Antiquities 1.6.4). A form of this name has been retained in Egypt in the Coptic name for India; Sofir (Gesenius s.v. Owphyr, Strong’s H211). Gesenius offers the explanation that Ophir corresponds to the part of India known to the Greeks as Souphara (ibid.).

Gold, silver, ivory, apes and peacocks were among the things imported from Ophir (1 Kings 10.11, 22) commodities which can all be found in India, but nowhere else can they all be found. Linguistic evidence supports the position that the Israelites gained these products from India. The Hebrew words for ape (qowph, Strong’s H6971), ivory (shenhabbiym, H8143) and peacock (tukkiy, H8500) appear to be loanwords from the Sanskrit words kapi, ibha-s and sikhi respectively (Gesenius s.v. qowph, shenhabbiym, tukkiy).

Ptolemy places a land known as Abiria in or near what he calls Indoscythia to the North of Patalene (Geography 7.1) also referred to in The Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (Fordham.edu ch. 41). These seem to be references to the land of the people known in the Vedas as the Abhira. There being ample evidence that a large portion of the Joktanite Hebrews settled in the Western parts of India, it should be no surprise if the sons of Eber left their father’s name in the region.


Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started