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 of this migration is of no academic value and mainly consists of modern authors, often Jews. None of the writings they draw on are of any antiquity and they are, almost without exception, fanciful tales concocted by European or European-Jewish explorers to amuse and please their financiers. Often the sources offered are dead ends and probably often fabrications. They do cite one source which I do hold in some esteem; Leo Africanus’ The History and Description of Africa.

On several occasions Africanus mentions sub-Saharan African Jews and I see no particular reason to doubt this. As we will see later on, the ancient Judaeans were certainly White and utterly alien to Negroes. Any pure-blooded Judaeans who may have settled the interior of Africa would have intermarried with the aboriginal Negroes. This is the most grave sin an Israelite might commit, and the offspring is not acceptable before God.

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

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

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

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

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

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

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” historical teachings.

These are those anti-Christs who persecuted and despised Jesus and the Apostles such as Herod and Judas. Throughout the New Testament they are portrayed as a bastard race of vipers born of fornication and their father the devil, guilty of the blood of Abel, fitted for destruction and hated by God. Thus to claim descent from that brood is to condemn oneself as a bastard child of Satan. If the “Black Hebrew Israelites” desire to claim this heritage then they can go right ahead.

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” historical teachings.

One of the “Black Hebrew Israelite’s” favourite claims is that the early modern West African Kingdom of Whydah was the habitation of Judah. On French maps the name Whydah variously appears as Ouida, Juida or Juda, which the “Black Hebrew Israelites” eagerly associate with the Biblical Judah. Judah (Strong’s H3063) is pronounced in Hebrew as Yehuwdah, and the contraction of Yehuwdah into two syllables is only explicable by its transmission via Greek (Iouda, G2448) and makes no sense as an innovation in Hebrew, Aramaic, Bantu, Yoruba (the language of that historical region) or any Niger-Congo language. In addition to the obvious differences between Yehuwdah and Whydah, the etymology of the latter is well known, and in no way connected to former. Whydah (Xwéda in the local Yoruba language) is named after the bird of the very same name which inhabits that region in great numbers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the northern house of Israel went into the Assyrian captivity they were placed among the Aryan Medes (the Japhetic Madai) and in Northern Assyria (the Shemitic Asshur).

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

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

“6 In the ninth year of Osee the king of the Assyrians took Samaria, and carried Israel away to the Assyrians, and settled them in Alae, and in Abor, near the rivers of Gozan, and in the mountains of the Medes.”
-2 Kings 17.6

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

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

The Northward migration of the house of Israel out of Mesopotamia is recorded in 2 Esdras.

“40 Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. 41 But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, 42 That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. 43 And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river. 44 For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. 45 For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth.”
-2 Esdras 13.40-45

It is ridiculous to imagine that the 10 tribes migrated from Northern Mesopotamia and Media to Africa. Had they been able or willing to travel South from the land of their captivity they would have had to pass by or through the land of Canaan. Why not simply return home to their territories in Canaan or settle in Judah?

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 of the Judeans 10.9.7

“… wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, 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) Uz, Hul, Togar (Togarmah) and Mesha (Meshech) are “beyond the Euphrates” from a Judaean perspective. These names all refer to a swath of lands in Anatolia, Armenia, Georgia and Russia. Abraham’s own ancestors were also said to have originated beyond the Euphrates (Joshua 24.2, 15).

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

Many “Black Hebrew Israelites” point to Zepheniah 3.10 as evidence that the Israelites came to inhabit Africa to the West or South of certain Ethiopian rivers. As we shall see shortly, there are two regions known as Ethiopia/Cush in both Scripture and history, one in Northeast Africa and Arabia straddling the Red Sea and one in Western Asia associated with Mesopotamia (Genesis 2.10-14, 10.8-12).

As we have just seen in the Old Testament, Josephus’ Antiquities and 2 Esdras the Israelites migrated North of Canaan into Northern Mesopotamia and Iran and not South into Africa. Several other Scriptures attest to Israel’s new location to the North and West of Canaan in Europe and Asia Minor, a point we will revisit later on. The Judahites were also taken captive and were carried away to Babylon. The most probable location for the dispersed of Israel of Zephaniah 3.10 is the Asiatic Cush.

The river of Pishon in Genesis 2.11 is said to encompass the land of Havilah which can be located in Arabia (Genesis 25.18, 1 Samuel 15.7). The river Hiddekel of Genesis 2.14 “flows forth over against the Assyrians” and is certainly the Tigris while the river Perath is the Euphrates (see Strong’s and Gesenius’ entries for H2313 and H6578). Certainly the geography of Genesis 2 indicates that the Cush of Genesis 2.13 is in Asia and probably it is that domain in Mesopotamia once ruled by Nimrod the Cushite (Genesis 10.8-12).

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

While it is not impossible that Zephaniah 3.10 refers to the African Cush, even this assumption proves nothing about the racial characteristics of any hypothetical Ethiopian Judahites. The racial characteristics of the ancient Hebrews and Ethiopians merit separate and lengthly discussion which I will undertake further on in this presentation.

Since Scripture, 2 Esdras and Josephus clearly place Israelites North of Canaan beyond the Euphrates and Judahites in Mesopotamia, it is far more likely that this prophecy refers to Israelites dispersed beyond the rivers of the Ethiopia/Cush of Mesopotamia.

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

Ancient Judaean mosaics and murals have been unearthed in Palestine and Syria. These works of Hebrew religious art consistently display the Europoid features of the Judaeans. The subjects display hyperdepigmentation and straight, high-rooted noses as well as modest lips and no prognathism of the jaws. Clearly these mosaics do not depict Negroes. Some scoffers claim these mosaics and murals are Greek or Roman rather than Judaean, but this is demonstrably false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“1) pool, pond

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

“1) tower 1a) tower 1b) elevated stage, pulpit 1c) raised bed”

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

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

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

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

“1) red, ruddy (of Esau as infant)”

Gesenius’ entry for admoni says “red, i.e. red-haired, rothhaarig [German], used of Esau, Gen. 25:25 ; of David, 1 Sa. 16:12 ; 17:42 ; LXX. [Greek Septuagint] πυρράκης ; Vulg. [Latin Vulgate] rufus.” Liddell & Scott defines πυρράκης/purrakes as “Redhead, common name of a slave, prop. of the red-haired slaves from Thrace”. Rufus means “red-haired” (Oxford Latin Dictionary s.v.). Obviously these words cannot describe the dark skinned and dark haired Congoid who has no reddish color to either their skin or hair. Only Caucasoids are typically hyper-depigmented in hair and skin.

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

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

“1) dazzling, glowing, clear, bright

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

“1) red, ruddy (of man, horse, heifer, garment, water, lentils)”

In the Greek Septuagint tsach is translated as leukos (G3022) meaning “white” (Strong’s and Thayer s.v.) and the Latin Vulgate translates it as candidus, meaning “fair skinned, pale” (Oxford Latin Dictionary s.v.). Adom is rendered as rubicundus, meaning “suffused with red, ruddy” (ibid. s.v.). The coloration of the Congoid, be it of the skin, hair or eyes, is not white, red, fire-like, rosy, sunny, bright, clear or white. All of the afforementioned descriptors can only describe hyper-depigmentation.

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

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

“1) (Qal) to be dazzling, be aglow, glow

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

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

In the Greek Septuagint tsach is translated as leukos (G3022) meaning “white” (Strong’s and Thayer s.v.) and the Latin Vulgate translates it as candidus, meaning “fair skinned, pale” (Oxford Latin Dictionary s.v.). Adom is rendered as rubicundus, meaning “suffused with red, ruddy” (ibid. s.v.). The coloration of the Congoid, be it of the skin, hair or eyes, is not red, fire-like, rosy, sunny, bright, clear or white. All of the afforementioned descriptors can only describe hyper-depigmentation.

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

Strong’s H2357, chavar: 
wax pale
A primitive root; to blanch (as with shame) — wax pale

“1) (Qal) to be white, grow white, grow pale

Of course the Congoid cannot wax pale as their melanin prevents the observance of blood flow. If the offspring of Jacob was physically unable to wax pale then the words of the prophet would be nonsensical to the Hebrew reader. They wouldn’t even know what it means to wax pale if their own race was incapable of doing so, much less use waxing pale as an idiomatic expression for being ashamed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“1) mildew, paleness, lividness 1a) mildew, rust 1b) paleness

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

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

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

In his entry for Adam (H120) Strong tells us the word is “From ‘adam [or adom, H119]; ruddy” and Strong explains that adom (H119) means “to show blood in the face”, “flush or turn rosy” or “be made ruddy”. In his entry for Adam Gesenius looks further back than Strong to the root dam (H1818) meaning “blood” (the root of adom). This derivation likewise affirms the connection to blushing and the bright red hue of blood. Many claim Adam derives from adamah (soil, H127), indicating a reddish brown hue, but this defies all convention whereby the smaller component (dam) is the root of the larger derivative (adamah) and no reputable lexicographers ascribe such an origin to Adam.

The source of this misconception is the folk etymology given by Josephus where he connects the name Adam to “red earth” (Antiquities 1.1.2). Josephus of course was not a linguist and didn’t recognize that the connection between Adam and adamah is that they both stem from the primitive root dam/”blood”, probably because the Hebrews associated red earth with the spilled blood of Abel (Genesis 4.10).

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

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

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

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

Josephus says “Cethimus [son of Javan] possessed the island Cethima: it is now called Cyprus … and one city there is in Cyprus that has been able to preserve its denomination; it has been called Citius [or Citium] by those who use the language of the Greeks, and has not, by the use of that dialect, escaped the name of Cethim.” (Antiquities 1.6.1).

Kittim is mentioned next to Elishah in Genesis 10, and Elishah can be identified with the early Cypriots, as in ancient times part of the island of Cyprus was known as Alashiya in Egyptian, Hittite, Akkadian, Mycenean and Ugaritic inscriptions (Arthur Bernard Knapp, Alashiya, Caphtor/Keftiu, and Eastern Mediterranean Trade: Recent Studies in Cypriote Archaeology and History, Journal of Field Archaeology 12 (2):231–250).

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

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

“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. 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 dusky [shachor, H7838], but beautiful, ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.

6Look not upon me, because I am swarthy [shachorchoreth, H7840], because the sun has looked unfavourably upon
: 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

In the Septuagint schachor is rendered as melaina, for which Liddell and Scott offer the definition “swart”. Strong’s defines H7838 as “properly, dusky, but also (absol.) Jetty” i.e. the proper/primary definition is simply dusky in the sense of relative darkness and only refers to jetty blackness by extension.

Strong’s entry for shachorchoreth supplies the meaning “swarthy”. In vs. 6 the Vulgate renders shachorchoreth as fusca, meaning “brown” (Oxford Latin Dictionary s.v.). This line is traditionally ascribed to the bride of Solomon, the Shulamite, and it would’ve been considered shameful for a woman to have a tan associated with menial labour. Note that the Shulamite is the same woman who is elsewhere described in the same book as having an ivory neck and eyes like pools (7.4).

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” will only quote verse 5 and will ignore verse 6 which explains the cause of the speakers swarthiness; exposure to the sun. Verse 6 also indicates that his swarthiness is a cause for shame. A naturally dark people would surely not be ashamed of a swarthy complexion.

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

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

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

Note that Job was not initially dark, but has become so only as his “bones are burned with heat”. His darkened 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). Strong’s entry for qadar offers “to mourn” and “(cause to) mourn”. Gesenius offers the definition “to cause to mourn” and Brown-Driver-Briggs offers the same definition in the same precise words as Gesenius.

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

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

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

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

Another verse that the “Black Hebrew Israelites” cite as proof that Israel was Congoid is quite poorly translated in the KJV.

“10 Our skin was black [kamar, H3648] like an oven because of the terrible famine.”
-Lamentations 5

Brown-Driver-Briggs defines kamar as “grow warm and tender, be or grow hot” and “make warm”. Strong’s offers the definition “properly, to intertwine or contract, i.e. (by implication) to shrivel (as with heat)”. Gesenius defines it as “to grow hot, to become warm, to glow”. Other translators render kamar as “hath been burning” (Young’s Literal Translation) “is hot as an oven” (English Standard Version) and “gloweth like an oven” (Darby Bible Translation).

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim adom (H122) refers to a reddish brown hue and for this purpose they point to the red heifer of Numbers 19.2. However this position is ignorant of the use of adom. Adom can be used to describe any reddish hue just as the English word red. Brown-Driver-Briggs defines H122 as “red, ruddy (of man, horse, heifer, garment, water, lentils)”, quite a diverse range of substances which display widely varied hues of red.

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

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

It is impossible that descriptions of people as “ruddy” in Scripture describe a brown hue and this is clearly evident where such descriptions appear in Scripture. In the Song of Solomon 5.1 we read “My kinsman is white and ruddy” and at Lamentations 4.7 is written “Her princes were purer than snow, whiter than milk; their bodies were more ruddy than coral”. I have already given the Hebrew definitions for the words rendered “white” in these verses and they indeed do describe pallour. How can one have skin that is both white and brown? For the sake of argument let us assume that these Hebrew words do mean “brown” rather than “ruddy” or “rosy”: it is only within the realm of possibility for a Caucasian to be both brown (tanned) and white (pale).

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

Many of the “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to cite a passage from the pseudepigraphal book 1 Enoch. Firstly it must be stated that 1 Enoch is a late composite work only attested in any large part in the Ge’ez language from quite late manuscripts. It is therefore not a solid basis for doctrine on its own. Even so, the “Black Hebrew Israelites” are grasping at straws with their interpretation of this passage.

“2 And his body was white as snow and
red as a rose, the hair of his head as white as wool and his long locks beautiful; and as for his eyes, when he opened them the whole house glowed like the sun—(rather) the whole house glowed even more exceedingly. 3 And when he arose from the hands of the midwife, he opened his mouth and spoke to the Lord with righteousness. 4 And his father, Lamech, was afraid of him and fled and went to Methuselah his father; 5 and he said to him, “I have begotten a strange son- He is not like an (ordinary) human being, but he looks like the children of the angels of heaven to me; his form is different, and he is not like us. His eyes are like the rays of the sun, and his face glorious. 6 It does not seem to me that he is of me, but of angels; and I fear that a wondrous phenomenon may take place upon the earth in his days.”
-1 Enoch 106.2-6

The “Black Hebrew Israelite” interpretation assumes that Lamech’s surprise at having sired a stark white, platinum blonde with light eyes indicates that Noah was an albino Congoid birthed to normal Congoid parents. This of course is absurd; most Caucasians are not hyperdepigmented, and certainly the vast majority are not platinum blondes with skin as white as snow. Caucasian skin tones range snow white to olive, and hair colours from platinum blonde to jet black. The earliest Caucasoids were more heavily pigmented with later mutations giving rise to different pigmentation patterns. Lamech may well have been a typical brunette and still been shocked by Noah’s hyperdepigmentation.

It is certainly strange that the “Black Hebrew Israelites” think that God would choose a defective specimen such as an albino to preserve the archetype of Adam. Albinos, unlike normal hyperdepigmented Caucasoids, suffer impaired vision and have greatly increased chances of developing skin cancer. Certainly an albino would not be a fit specimen for the preservation of the race of Adam.

If the “Black Hebrew Israelites” want to talk about physical descriptions of the Hebrews in extra-Biblical sources, then two can play at that game, and the “Black Hebrew Israelites” cannot win.

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!”

Eusebius of Caesarea (quoting Artapanus of Alexandria), Praeparatio Evangelica book 9 chapter 27:
And Moses they say was tall and ruddy, with long white hair, and dignified …”

“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.
-Josephus, Antiquities of the Judeans 12.241

The similarities between the Judeans and Greeks were not limited to their physical appearance. There is ample evidence within classical history, Scripture and archaeology to establish that the Danaan and Dorian Greeks were Israelites from the tribe of Dan and the Manassehite city of Dor.

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

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

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

This passage is an essential cross reference for the description of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7.9. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” take this passage to mean that Jesus has hair the texture of certain types of wool as they do. Of course this is not what the text actually says (leukai G3022 hos G5613 erion G2053 leukon G3022 hos G5613 chion G5510) which means “white like wool, as white as snow” (King James Version), “white, like white wool, like snow” (English Standard Version) or “white, as if white wool — as snow” (Young’s Literal Translation). The comparison to wool is one of colour and not one of texture.

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

Fine frankincense.

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

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

Brass burning in a furnace.

One might arguably translate pepyromenes as “refined”, but of course the chalkolibanon could not be at all close to the skin colour of a Congoid. As demonstrated previously, chalkolibanon is so named for its whiteness. Even brass and bronze etc. (common English translations of chalkolibanon) do not have a colour anywhere close to the skin colour of a pure Congoid (and Christ cannot have been a mongrel) but they do resemble the skin tone of a tanned Caucasian.

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. The fact that He is described as luminous favours Thayer’s definitions “fiery” or “made to glow” as the colour of bronze is not so luminous. Of course this cannot possibly describe the dark skin of a Congoid which reflects very little light.

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

The sun shining.

Another passage they misinterpret is at Revelation 4 where God is described as He sits upon his heavenly throne.

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

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” cherry-pick a few particularly dark examples of sard stones and insist this means God is some exotic shade of dark reddish brown. Firstly we ought to consider whether or not this description should be interpreted as describing a natural unglorified body.


Jasper is a very diverse stone which comes in a wide variety of colours and we cannot be certain which colour John had in mind. Nonetheless we will continue consider the sardis stone. Thayer defines sardion (Strong’s G4556) as “a precious stone of which there are two types, the former is called a carnelian (because flesh coloured) and the latter a sard”. Dodson defines sardion as “carnelian”.


Sard and carnelian stones are similar stones, and the names are often used interchangeably. The difference is not rigidly defined, but sard is generally darker than carnelian. These stones range in hue from a pinkish white to reddish brown. The Oxford Advanced American Dictionary defines carnelian as “a red, brown, or white stone”. If John indeed describes a natural physical form in Revelation 4.3 he must be describing the contrast of white and ruddy flesh like that of the other Israelites described in Scripture (Song of Solomon 5.10, 7.4, Lamentations 4.7).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Benjamite named Kuwsh is mentioned in Psalm 7.1 and another Israelite named Kuwshiy at Jeremiah 36.14. The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim this proves that he was a Negroe, interpreting Kuwsh as “black”. Brown-Driver-Briggs does offer the definition “black” for Kuwsh, yet this definition appears in no earlier sources and appears to be based on the modern (often derogatory) Jewish usage of Kushi rather than any authentic ancient Hebrew definition. Kuwsh and related words are never used to refer to colours in the Scriptures and no internal Biblical evidence supports the definition of Kuwsh as “black”.

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

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

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

But of course Simeon was not called Niger on account of being a Negroe. It is hardly unique for White people to be called black as we see in the use of the term Black Irish or the name Hugh the Black, a Frankish Duke of Burgundy in the 10th century. My own wife’s English maiden name is Black, and I assure you, she is no Negroe.

A denarius of Pescennius Niger, Antioch, Anatolia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Black Hebrew Israelite” mongrel 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.

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.

The “Black Hebrew Israelite” mongrel delusion.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” have imagined that the Semites are their forebears while Ham fathered the full-blooded Congoids of Africa. On account of the European admixture of African-Americans they have come to see themselves as a separate race. This leaves Japheth as the sole father of the other four main races; Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australoids and Capoids. Of course this is all childish nonsense and it is clear from Scripture that the race of Adam is the unadulterated Caucasoid race. “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to denigrate Caucasoids, but the Caucasus region is where all the sons of Noah came from.

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

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

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

Now from Brown-Driver-Briggs:

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

Gesenius’ definition for Ararat.

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

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

In his entry for Adam (H120) Strong tells us the word is “From ‘adam [or adom, H119]; ruddy” and Strong explains that adom (H119) means “to show blood in the face”, “flush or turn rosy” or “be made ruddy”. In his entry for Adam Gesenius looks further back than Strong to the root dam (H1818) meaning “blood” (the root of adom). This derivation likewise affirms the connection to blushing and the bright red hue of blood. Many claim Adam derives from adamah (soil, H127), indicating a reddish brown hue, but this defies all convention whereby the smaller component (dam) is the root of the larger derivative (adamah) and no reputable lexicographers ascribe such an origin to Adam.

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

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

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

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

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

Lebanese woman.

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

Lebanese woman.

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

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

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 should be noted that Palestine was much more temperate, lush and heavily wooded in antiquity.

Samaritan woman.

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

Egyptian woman.

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

Lebanese woman.

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

Iraqi man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to point to the so-called “Lachish reliefs” of the South-West palace of Sennacherib at Ninevah as evidence that the Judahites were Congoid. In these reliefs the glyptic styles which are used to depict the hair of the subjects are interpreted by the “Black Hebrew Israelites” as portraying certain hairstyles popular among Congoids today which favour the crinkled hair of that race. I would not jump to such a conclusion based on such scant evidence and would note that, if we are to interpret the details of the depicted captives as accurate, then the figures cannot possibly be Congoid as they are orthognathous with long high-rooted noses.

A detail showing the profile of one of the captives from Lakitsu depicted at Sennacherib’s palace. Note the lack of prognathism of the jaws and the long, convex and high rooted nose. These are certainly not features possessed by the Congoid race. Their curly hair is probably the result of deliberate styling with curling tongs, a practice that became widespread across the Ancient Near East.

Sir Henry Rawlinson, a renowned Orientalist and the father of Assyriology, strongly disagreed with the identification of these reliefs with the siege of Lachish. Rawlinson stated confidently that “it is hardly possible that the capture of Lakitsu, which is figured in the most elaborate manner on the walls of Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, can refer to this city, as the two names are written quite differently in the Cuneiform characters” (Outline of the History of Assyria, as collected from the inscriptions discovered by A. H. Layard in the ruins of Nineveh, The Royal Asiatic Society, John W. Parker & Son, West Strand, London pg. 24).

The Israelite delegation of King Jehu depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. Note the lack of prognathism of the jaws, long and high rooted noses, long straight hair and beards and fringes. While the art is somewhat crude, we can see clearly that these Israelites bear no great similarity in phenotype or apparel to the inhabitants of Lakitsu.

That the inhabitants of Lakitsu in these reliefs are not Judahites is quite obvious when their appearance is compared to the Bible and other ancient reliefs which certainly do depict Israelites. The people of Lakitsu are depicted in plain clothing lacking any fringes (contrary to Numbers 15.38, Deuteronomy 22.12 et al.). Furthermore their beards and hair are both cropped closely to the scalp and face (contrary to Leviticus 19.27) whereas the Israelites are shown in all other reliefs with hair flowing down their neck and full beards. The people of Judah did not begin to abandon their own native fashions until some time during the Hellenistic period, and so the captive people of Lakitsu depicted on the walls of Sennacherib’s palace must be pagan inhabitants of an entirely different city which fell to the Assyrians.

Israelite captives from Ashtaroth depicted at the central palace at Nimrud. Note the lack of prognathism of the jaws, long and high rooted noses, long beards and fringes. Also note that only sections of their hair appear curled while other sections appear to be wavy or crimped. This indicates that the curls are the deliberate product of styling.

Many “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that biblical leprosy is actually what we call vitiligo today and that White people are in fact biblical lepers. They base this on descriptions of leprosy in Scripture as causing extreme pallour. The Hebrew and Greek words (Strong’s G3014 and H6883) are regarded by credible lexicographers as refering to leprosy (Gesenius’ and Strong’s s.v.). The Oxford Advanced American Dictionary defines leprosy as “an infectious disease that causes painful white areas on the skin and can destroy nerves and flesh”.

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

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

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

There are a number of prophecies concerning Israel which Bantus and other Negroes fail to fulfil, but which are all fulfilled in the nations of Christian Europe. Here we will investigate some of these prophecies and further expose the falsehoods of the “Black Hebrew Israelites”.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

The true Israelites are a company or commonwealth of nations.

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

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

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

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

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

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 Koine Greek Septuagint and New Testament, the Aramaic Peshitta and Diatessaron, the Latin Vetus Latina and Vulgate, the Gothic Wulfila Bible, the Old English Hexateuch, the Middle English Wycliffe’s Bible, the Early New High German Luther Bible and the English King James Bible. No race has done more for the preservation and distribution of the Scriptures than Europeans.

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

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

True Israel would colonize and spread abroad.

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

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

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

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

Some “Black Hebrew Israelites” point to the name of the Afro-Asiatic language group and imagine that this validates their beliefs. Some even believe that the prefix Afro refers to the afro hairstyle rather than to the geographical region of Africa. In truth the Afro-Asiatic languages that exist in are spoken exclusively by the autocthonous Caucasoid peoples and peoples of mixed Caucasoid-Congoid origin, generally in North Africa and the Horn of Africa, while the African people of “pure” Congoid stock speak unrelated Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan tongues.

The Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages are distinct from both Afro-Asiatic and Indo-European languages which were the two main linguistic groups to which belong the tongues of the Genesis 10 Adamic nations. Not one nation mentioned in Scripture spoke a Niger-Congo or Nilo-Saharan language and all which can be identified with certainty spoke Afro-Asiatic, Indo-European, Hurro-Urartian, Kartvelian, Uralic or isolate languages. The Niger-Congo and Nilo-Saharan languages have no affinity with the languages of Scripture such as Hebrew, Aramaic (both Afro-Asiatic) or Greek (Indo-European).

The Niger-Congo peoples have never built a two-story building, seaworthy watercraft or even a wheel without the aid of Caucasoids. They certainly could not produce wagons, ships, walled cities, bronze and iron weapons and tools or other impliments used and manufactured by the Israelites in Scripture. Had the Israelites been Congoids they would have been reliant on mud huts and primitive weaponry and would never have taken to the sea or rode upon chariots and wagons.

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

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

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

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

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

Aethiopids typically have lighter skin than Congoids and sometimes wavy or 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 or Mulattoe 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

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

I would now like to now quote Diodorus Siculus from his Library of Histories regarding the Ethiopians. After describing the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus Siculus goes on to describe in contrast the primitive hominids dwelling in Ethiopia and nearby regions. It is apparent here that “Ethiopian” is used here as a loose demonym for a people utterly dissimilar to the civilised Ethiopians Diodorus had described previously.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To the South of Egypt was the kingdom of Kush in Nubia. It is clear that this kingdom indeed was named for Cush, son of Ham as it bears his name and borders on other Cushite and Hamite territories. Throughout the art of the Egyptians we see clearly that the people of Kush were in fact black. Their black or dark brown skin and protruding jaws clearly mark them as physically Congoid. There is however more to this population than meets the eye. Analysis of the Nubian genome shows that the Nubians indeed carried Caucasian DNA and paternal lineages.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” point to Amos 9.7 as evidence that the Israelites were physically similar to the allegedly Congoid Ethiopians.

“Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?”

The building of the tower of Babel from the Huqoq synagogue, Galilee. Nimrod’s Cushites appear as the dark men driving the white slaves, the other descendants of Noah. Though it is inaccurate in that the early Cushites were not nearly so dark, this mosaic shows that the 5th century Judaeans percieved themselves as racially distinct from the Cushites of their own time.

The phrase “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me” is quite ambiguous by itself, and here the “Black Hebrew Israelites” insert their conjecture that this phrase describes a physical similarity between Israelites and Ethiopians. This is not in line with the context of Amos 9 which is a prophecy and rebuke against idolatrous Israel. God is not likening them physically to the Ethiopians but rather is comparing their spirit to that of the remote heathens of Ethiopia. To interpret that this verse is describing a physical similarity between Ethiopians and Israelites is to read something into the text which flies in the face of Jeremiah 13.23, a verse which clearly implies a noticeable difference between the skin tone of the Ethiopians and that of the Israelites.

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

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

An Egyptian reserve head, Giza, Egypt. 4th dynasty.

Undoubtedly the first Pharaohs of Mizraim were of Caucasoid stock which is clearly shown in contemporary depictions.

A statue of Sepa (3rd dynasty), Saqqara, Egypt.

While the art of early dynastic Egypt is crude, we can clearly see that the subjects did not exhibit the prognathism of the jaws which characterizes the Congoid race.

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

Of course Negroes are even more foreign to Egypt than Ethiopia, and the Negro has always been an alien minority since they first arrived in Egypt.

An Egyptian reserve head, Giza, Egypt. 4th dynasty.

Never at any point in history has the general populace of Egypt been anything other than Caucasoid.

A statue of Nesa (3rd dynasty), Saqqara, Egypt.

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.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” like to point out that Jesus’ family fled into Egypt to hide from Herod (Matthew 2.13-15) and that St. Paul was mistaken once for an Egyptian (Acts 21.37-38). They then assert that this means Jesus’ family and St. Paul were Congoids who blended in among the alleged Congoid populace of Egypt. This is absurd for a number of reasons.

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

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.

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

Both the records of Flavius Josephus and an honest study of the chronology of the period attest to us that an 18th Dynasty pharaoh named Thutmose (called Tethmosis by Josephus, Against Apion 1.91-94, most probably Thutmose III) was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Another four pharaohs bearing this name were all related. Hatshepsut was the fifth of the Thutmosid Dynasty, and it is probably she who became Moses’ adoptive Egyptian mother, perhaps giving him a form of her family name. The sixth and eighth pharaohs of the dynasty were Thutmose III and IV. Amenhotep III then reigned until Akhenaten took the throne.

Josephus regarded the Hyksos of Manetheo’s Aegyptica as being the same people as the Israelites (Against Apion 1.91-92, 103-104). While this is only partially correct, Manetheo evidently confusing or conflating the Hebrews and related Asiatic Shemites as the Hyksos in his account, this does help to establish the correct dating of the Egyptian captivity and Exodus to the early-mid 2nd millennium BC. This is the period during which the Hyksos are known to have dwelt in Egypt.

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

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

Of course these Nordoid Egyptians are probably not the original stock of Mizraim. The Hamitic stock of Egypt was certainly generally of the Mediterranean variety which is clear from the art of ancient Egypt, the mummified remains of the Egyptians and the racial types which dominate there today, altered somewhat as they are. These Nordoid Egyptians probably grew in prevalence with the influx of Asiatic Shemites in the Middle Bronze Age, most probably connected to the migrations of Asiatic chariot warriors such as the Hyksos from the Levant. I have expounded upon this thesis in this essay near the end of the entry for Arphaxad and sons.

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

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.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” and other Afrocentrists claim that the word Kemet meaning “black land” (the Egyptian’s name for their own land) refers to it being inhabited by Congoids. This however is an erroneous assumption and Kemet certainly refers to the black soil of the Nile Delta and not the skin colour of the inhabitants. The Nile floods enriched the land with rich black soil which distinguished the fertile Kemet (“black land”) from the barren deshret (“red land”) beyond the reach of the waters of the Nile (Barry J. Kemp, Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization, Psychology Press p. 21).

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

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

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”.

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 relatively dark to the ancient Greeks 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 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that the bondage in Egypt described in Deuteronomy 28.68 was fulfilled in the trans-Atlantic slave trade and that Egypt in this verse is an allegory for America, but this is easily disproven. This curse was actually fulfilled on two separate occasions in history. First when Ptolemy sent conquered Judaeans on ships to Schedia in Egypt as slaves. Thus Deuteronomy 28.68 was fulfilled that none would buy the Israelite slaves (something which cannot be said of the trans-Atlantic slaves).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This interpretation clearly fails as the Scriptures make it clear that the 400 years was fulfilled long ago (Genesis 15.16, Acts 7.6-17), but we will continue to scrutinize their interpretations further. They claim that they are currently in that land awaiting liberation, but the fact is that the Portugese began the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1526 (Greta Weber, Shipwreck Shines Light on Historic Shift in Slave Trade, National Geographic Society June 5, 2015). If they were to be liberated after 400 years that should’ve occurred in 1926. In truth this interpretation is not in accord with the strict meaning of the text. The prophecy at Genesis 15.13 only necessitates that the Israelites sojourn in strange lands and be afflicted by the inhabitants for 400 years and that they be enslaved for an undefined period of time during that sojourning. This was all fulfilled long before the trans-Atlantic slave trade as indicated in Acts 7.

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

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

While we might reconcile the apparent contradictions in the text of Genesis and Exodus by consulting the writings of St. Paul, Exodus 12.40 in the Masoretic Text appears to confound this where it reads “the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.” (King James). However when we consult the elder Greek text of the Septuagint we read “the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Chanaan, was four hundred and thirty years.” (Brenton’s Septuagint). This reading is also shared by the Samaritan Pentateuch, aligns much better with the information found in Genesis, Exodus and Galatians and is also affirmed by the Judaean historian Flavius Josephus (Antiquities 2.15.2).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An example of “Black Hebrew Israelite” racial theory.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to draw attention to Jewish-African ties some even claiming descent from Sephardic Jews who settled Africa after being driven out of Spain for exploitative usury, pedophilic ritual murder and betrayals such as that at the gates of Toledo.

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

They think somehow this validates their claims, but when one realizes that the Jews of today are Edomites by birth, this can only be seen as discrediting the “Black Hebrew Israelites”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Published by SloanVSutherland

"I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord"

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: