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, 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.

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). Herod the Great was very concerned when he heard that there was a new king of the Judaeans born (Matthew 2.2-3) and undoubtedly Pilate’s mocking message to Judaea was not lost on the Herodian court.

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.

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

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

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. 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. 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 contains murals depicting red haired Syrian tribute bearers. 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). While this identification is probable, there certainly being a land named for Uz in the vicinity of the Levant (Jeremiah 25.20, Lamentations 4.21), the Uzzites must have spread further North. 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”.

Josephus explains that “Ul [Hul] founded Armenia” (Antiquities 1.6.4). As I have explained in my essay on the Japhethites, Togarmah is to be sought in Armenia and Meshech in Russia. 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 Noahite Nations: the Japhethites’
https://teknatoutheou.home.blog/2019/12/07/the-noahite-nations-the-japhethites/

“Beyond the Euphrates” is a phrase found twice in the writings of Josephus, 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.

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 plausible, 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 Indo-Iranic Medes, perhaps lending credence to the interpretation of Arphaxad as “by the side of Arya”.

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.

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 pg. 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, volume 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 pg. 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 pg. 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, volume 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 pg. 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, volume 1 pg. 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 and Afghanistan.

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 pg. 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 fathers name in the region.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Description of Abraham’s wife Sarah from the Dead Sea Scrolls, Genesis Apocryphon (1Q20) column 20:
“How fair are her breasts and how beautiful all her whiteness!”

Description of Noah from the Book of Noah, 1 Enoch 106.2:
“And his body was white as snow and red as the blooming of a rose and the hair of his head and his long locks were white as wool, and his eyes beautiful.”

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

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



The Noahite Nations: the Hamites

‘Noah Damning Ham’
-Ivan Stepanovitch Ksenofontov

The name Ham (H2525) means “hot” or “warm” (Gesenius’ and Strongs’ 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 reasobably be imagined that his son Ham was racially dissimilar to Japheth and Shem.

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

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

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

‘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.

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.

“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.”

These sources do not agree on a single precise location for these White Ethiopians but both attest to their existence and place them near the Libyan-Egyptians and the Berber tribe of the Gaetuli. It is probable that many fled Ethiopia in the wake of the incursions of Nilotic and Bantu tribes, but the most likely cause of this dispersion is the deportation of of the Ethiopians and Egyptians by Esarhaddon prophecied in Isaiah 20 and attested to in Assyrian inscriptions (Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, The University of Chicago Press vol. 2 secs. 557ff.). Thus we see them neighbouring these Libyan-Egyptians, also seemingly uprooted from their original homelands. Undoubtedly these deportations contributed greatly to the decline of genuine Cushite blood in Ethiopia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘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 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. The only representions of Congoids in ancient Egyptian art depict slaves and foreigners.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naphtuhim seems to be a compound name derived from the Egyptian phrase p-t-mhw, consisting of the definite article, a generic name for foreign tribute-bearing countries and a word for the direction “north”, giving the meaning “the country of the north”, most likely the delta of the Nile. 

Pathrusim is a loan from Egyptian p-t-rsy, of a similar composition to p-t-mhw, but designating “the country of the south”. In the Septuagint Pathrusim/Pathruciy is rendered as 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” (Jer. 47.4). We ought then to seek to identify Caphtor in search of the Philistines.

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

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

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

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

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

Phut.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

In the Amarna letters there is mention of the king of Jerusalem named Abdi-Heba whose name appears to be a theophoric name invoking the Hurrian goddess Hebat (Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, Princeton University Press pg. 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/

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Noahite Nations: the Japhethites

‘Landscape with Noah’ -Joseph Anton Koch

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

While his descendants undoubtedly spread to further regions and diverged into new tribal branches, much of what we know of them is lost to time, unknown events that went unrecorded in remote regions among illiterate peoples. Nonetheless we are still able to identify each of the Japhethic patriarchs with at least one branch of their offspring.

Gomer, Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah.

In Jeremiah 51.27 Ashkenaz is mentioned along with Ararat (Strong’s H780) and Minni (H4508), both regions in the vicinity of Armenia (Strong’s and Gesenius’ s.v.). Ararat corresponds to Urartu which was centered in the historic Armenian highlands and Minni is the historical Mannaea centered in modern Iranian Azerbaijan adjacent to Armenia. In Armenian tradition, Ashkenaz and his brother Togarmah were considered to be the ancestors of the Armenians.

Koriun, the earliest Armenian historian, calls the Armenians an “Askanazian nation” in the first line of his work Life of Mashtots. The later Armenian historian Hovhannes Draskhanakerttsi also refers to Ashkenaz and Togarmah as the ancestors of the Armenians (History of Armenia 1.6-7). The identification of Togarmah with the Armenians is affirmed by Hippolytus of Rome (Chronica 68).

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

While these local traditions may not be precisely reliable, we can say with certainty that the Armenian and Kartvelian peoples of the Caucasus were traditionally thought to be descended from Gomer. This squares well with the what little Biblical information there is concerning the descendants of Gomer. It must also be said that Gomer was not the only patriarch whose posterity contributed to Armenian ethnogenesis, and it is apparent that the descendants of Aram through Hul also formed a portion of the ancient Armenians.

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

Riphath cannot be identified with certainty but I might propose that he left his name to the Riphean Mountains of classical Greek geography in whose foothills the Arimaspi (also known as Ripheans, Pomponious Mela, Chorographia 1.1.2) were said to live. While the location of the Riphean Mountains is uncertain, they certainly were quite far from Anatolia and the Caucasus where Riphath’s brothers, cousins and forefathers seem to have settled. Nonetheless it is not impossible that the sons of Riphath reached the Riphean Mountains during the long lapse of the ages.

Flavius Josephus tells us that Gomer founded the Galatians, Ashkenaz the Rheginians, Riphath the Paphlagonians and Togarmah the Phrygians (Antiquities 1.6.1). Hippolytus of Rome identified Gomer not as the father of the Galatians, but of their neighbours, the Cappadocians (Chronica 57). There being no particularly close connections between any of these tribes aside from their geographical proximity, it seems most plausible that Josephus and Hippolytus are identifying the Gomerite tribes with a region they had once settled and confusing them with its much later inhabitants. Most probably ancient Gomerites settled in Anatolia before migrating North into the Caucasus.

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

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

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

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

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

Magog, Meshech and Tubal.

Herodotus mentions two tribes among those subject to Persian dominion, the Moschi and the Tibareni (The Histories 3.94, 7.78), which resided in the North Eastern reaches of Anatolia on the coast of Pontus. Josephus tells us “Thobel founded the Thobelites, who are now called Iberes; and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch; now they are Cappadocians.” (Antiquities 1.6.1). Josephus’ Thobelites and Mosocheni can only be the Tibareni and Moschi of Herodotus.

There is good reason to think that both the Tibareni and the Moschi originated in North Eurasia before crossing the Caucasus and settling in Pontus. Josephus refers to the Tubalites as Iberians (of the Iberia of the Caucasus) and other ancient writers attributed to the Tibareni an origin in Scythia (Xenophon, Anabasis 5.5.2, Stephanus of Byzantium, Ethnica s.v. Tibarenia). Strabo has the Moschian Mountains as joining the Caucasus (Geography 11.2.1).

Over 1.5 millennia before the Germanic tribe of the Rus conquered the land known now as Russia, Ezekiel wrote of Rhos as being the prince of Meshech and Tubal in the land of Magog (Ezekiel 38.2), nations which are aligned against Christendom/Israel during the last days. This is no mere coincidence, but rather it is a clear manifestation of the divine inspiration of the prophet Ezekiel. The prophet was certainly describing the future Soviet Union and the mixed Caucasian-Asiatic communist hordes of North Eurasia. In light of the relationship which the Rus were destined to have with Magog, Meshech and Tubal, we may reasonably associate Mesech and Tubal with the early peoples inhabiting the regions surrounding the Russian cities of Moscow and Tobolsk.

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

In the various chronicles of the Hungarians, Magor is given as the progenitor of the Magyars/Hungarians (Zoltán Kordé, Eneth, Hunor és Magyar; Menroth, Akadémiai Kiadó pg. 275) and Magor is reckoned by some accounts to be a descendant of Magog (ibid., Miklós Molnár, A Concise History of Hungary, Cambridge University Press pg. 10) while in other accounts Magor is a son of Japheth (Chronici Hungari 3.4). The “Scythians” who Josephus identifies as the Magogites must be the Magyars who inhabited Scythia before their migration to the Carpathian Basin.

Madai.

According to Josephus “from Madai came the Madeans, who are called Medes, by the Greeks” (Antiquities 1.6.1). Throughout the Septuagint Maday (Strong’s H4074) is rendered as Μήδων or in one instance Μήδους (Isaiah 13.17), forms of the Greek name for the Medes. In Assyrian sources Media is refered to as Mada, cognate with Hebrew Maday. Medos was reckoned to be the ancestor of the Medes in classical Greek history. Christian scholars have proposed linking Hebrew Madai and Greek Medos since at least the time of Isidore of Seville in in the 6th century AD (Etymologiae 9.2.28).

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

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

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

Tiras.

Josephus writes “Thiras also called those whom he ruled over Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians.” (Antiquities 1.6.1). Tiras is written in Hebrew as Thiyrac, and so it is hardly a great change that Josephus alleges. In the Jerusalem Targum and the Targum of Jonathan Thiyrac (H8494) is rendered as Thrace (Gesenius s.v.). Hippolytus of Rome also identifies Tiras with the Thracians (Chronica 63).

According to Strabo the Phrygians of Anatolia were a colony of the Thracians (Geography 7.3.2, 10.3.16) and Herodotus said that the Phrygians were formerly called Bryges, a tribe he elsewhere refers to as Thracians (Histories 7.73, 6.45). The Thracians were a prolific people, so much so that Herodotus considered them the most numerous people in the world after the Indians (The Histories 5.3). Despite Hellenization and repeated invasions of the Balkans some Thracians retained their identity, with a single tribe, the Bessi, persisting until the 4th century AD. Undoubtedly today the Thracians remain as a substantial ancestral group among South Eastern Europeans.

Javan, Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim.

Javan is traditionally associated with the Ionian Greeks following Josephus (Antiquities 1.6.1) and Hippolytus (Chronica 60). In the Septuagint Yavan (Strong’s H3120) is rendered in some instances as Ελλάδα/Hellasa (Isaiah 66.19), Ελλάς/Hellas (Ezekiel 27.13) or Ελλήνων/Hellenon (Daniel 8.21, 10.20, 11.2, Zechariah 9.13). In the Old Persian text of the Behistun Rock inscription they are called Yavana where Sir Henry Rawlinson has “Ionians”.

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). Josephus identified Elishah with the Aeolian Greeks (Antiquities 1.6.1), a likely identification, though no other source substantiates this claim.

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). Given the proximity to Elishah there should be no doubt of this identification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Christian Answer to the Jewish Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Zoroastrian and Christian Parallels

As most of my readers are aware, the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity were dispersed into Greater Iran and there they were known variously as Saka, and Scythians. The other inhabitants of ancient Iran were also descendants of the Genesis 10 Adamic nations through Shem and Japheth and so we should fully expect the Iranic peoples to have had some grasp or memory of their Creator.

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

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

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

‘The Noahite Nations: the Japhethites’
https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2020/01/25/the-noahite-nations-the-japhethites/

A relief depicting Ahura Mazda, Persopolis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The seal of King Hezekia of Judah, Jerusalem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Behistun inscription.

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

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

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

Refuting “Black Hebrew Israelites”

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

To me 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 alleged connection all the way across the continent to their Bantu ancestors without a scrap of credible evidence.

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

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

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

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

‘Who Killed Jesus?’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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 that the Scythians and Kimmerians were known to have settled. Abraham’s own ancestors were also said to have originated beyond the Euphrates (Joshua 24.2).

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

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

As we have just seen in 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.

Welch 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.

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.

There being two places named Kush/Ethiopia in history and Scripture, this which Kush is meant in Zephaniah 3.10 must be interpreted in light of the rest of Scripture and history. Since Scripture, 2 Esdras and Josephus clearly place Israelites North of Canaan, it must be understood that this refers to the Israelites of the Assyrian captivity dispersed beyond the rivers of the Ethiopia of the East, otherwise known as the Indo-Scythians.

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

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

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

‘White Ancient Judaea’

https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=578589222744910&id=296739117596590

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong’s H4449, purrazo:

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

Strong’s H132, admoni:

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

Obviously neither of these words 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, leukos G3022) and ruddy (adom, H122, purrhos G4450), chosen out from myriads.”
-Song of Solomon 5.10

Strong’s G4450, purros:

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

Strong’s H122, adom:

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

Strong’s G3022, leukos:

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

Strong’s H6703, tsach:

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

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

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

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

Strong’s G2989, lampos:

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

Strong’s H6703, tsachach:

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

Strong’s H119, adom:

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

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

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

Strong’s H2357:

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

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

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

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

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

Strong’s G3021, leukainos:

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

Strong’s H3835, laban:

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

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

The name Adam is derived from Strong’s H119:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Refined brass bars.

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

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

Refined brass bars.

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

But of course Simon was not called Niger on account of his skin colour. It is hardly unique for White people to be called black as we see in the use of the 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. As we have seen earlier in this presentation, the Judaeans were certainly White, and Simon was no exception. It is far more likely that he was so-named for having raven hair.

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

The “Black Hebrew Israelite” racial delusion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Adam: The Patriarch of One Race’

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

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’

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

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

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

‘The Noahite Nations: the Japhethites’

https://teknatoutheou.wordpress.com/2020/01/25/the-noahite-nations-the-japhethites/

‘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/

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

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

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

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

Syrian boys.

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

Egyptian woman.

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

Samaritan woman.

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

Egyptian woman.

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

Lebanese woman.

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

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

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

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

Syrian man.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 the prophet speaks of dispersed Israel and Judah saying “they shall come, together, from the land of the north” (vs. 18) and 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.

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, 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. Needless to say, Negroes have never inhabited any of these territories in any substantial numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aethiopid male example.

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

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

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

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

Aethiopid female example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aethiopic male example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aethiopid female example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’

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

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

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

Aethiopid male example.

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

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

Gesenius’ entry for Kuwsh.

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

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

Den.

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

Narmer.

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

Sneferu.

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

Nefertari and a servant.

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

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

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

Tjuyu.

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

Asiatic labourers in Egypt baking bread.

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

An Asiatic mercenary employed by the Egyptians.

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.

Thutmose IV.

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

Egyptian couple.

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

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

Egyptian musicians.

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

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

Ramses III and Isis.

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

Yuya.

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

Nefertiabet

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

Nefertari.

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

Amenhotep III and Queen Tiy.

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

Ramesses II.

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

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

Psusennes I.

It is clear from the context that Homer 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.

Nefertari and a servant.

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

Ossipumphnoferu.

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

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

Asiatic labourers in Egypt making bricks.

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

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

Thutmose III.

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

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

‘The Noahite Nations: the Hamites’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.” (Benton’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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the Ancient Aethiops

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

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

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

Zipporah was a Midianite 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.”

These sources do not agree on a single precise location for these White Ethiopians but both attest to their existence and place them near the Libyan-Egyptians and the Berber tribe of the Gaetuli. It is probable that many fled Ethiopia in the wake of the incursions of Nilotic and Bantu tribes, but the most likely cause of this dispersion is the deportation of of the Ethiopians and Egyptians by Esarhaddon prophecied in Isaiah 20 and attested to in Assyrian inscriptions (Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, The University of Chicago Press vol. 2 secs. 557ff.). Thus we see them neighbouring these Libyan-Egyptians, also seemingly uprooted from their original homelands. Undoubtedly these deportations contributed greatly to the decline of genuine Cushite blood in Ethiopia.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Serpent Race in the Gospel of Matthew

‘The Devil Sowing Tares’ -Abraham Bloemaert

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

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

‘Adam: The Patriarch of One Race’

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

‘The Origins of the Serpent Seed’

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

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

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

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

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

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only thanks to the wit of Tamar did Judah have Adamic posterity and we see that the sons of Tamar were counted as the first and second born of Judah. This is despite the fact that Shelah was their elder brother, proving the illegitimate status of the Canaanite mongrel. In Judges 1.21 we find that the Canaanite tribe of the Jebusites settled among the tribe of Benjamin in Jerusalem and we find in Joshua 15.63 that these Jebusites remained there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started