Refuting “Black Hebrew Israelites”

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

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

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

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

Even if some of the Judaeans ventured into sub-Saharan Africa they could not possibly be the true house of Judah. These Judaeans dispersed from Judaea after 70 AD were mostly Edomites and Kenites or Judahites Benjamites and Levites who had mongrelized with the Edomites, Kenites, Canaanites and other nations adulterated with non-Adamic stock. These are those anti-Christs who persecuted and despised Jesus such as Herod and Judas. Thus to claim descent from that brood is to condemn oneself as a bastard child of Satan.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Edomite Jews’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Scythian Origins: the Lost Tribes in Iran, the Steppe and Europe’

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

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

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

An ancient Judaean mosaic, ‘The Mona Lisa of Sepphoris’, Galilee.

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

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

Strong’s H4449, purrazo:

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

Strong’s H132, admoni:

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

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

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

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

Strong’s G4450, purros:

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

Strong’s H122, adom:

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

Strong’s G3022, leukos:

From luke (“light”); white — white.”

Strong’s H6703, tsach:

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

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

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

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

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

Strong’s G2989, lampos:

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

Strong’s H6703, tsachach:

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

Strong’s H119, adom:

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

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

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

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

Strong’s H2357:

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

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

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

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

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

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

Strong’s G3021, leukainos:

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

Strong’s H3835, laban:

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

Judaean mosaic, Sepphoris, Galilee.

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

The name Adam is derived from Strong’s H119:

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

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

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

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

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

“Black Hebrew Israelites” will point to the few verses where Hebrews 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 are always given in lamentation and in connection with exposure to the sun and starvation. It is also portrayed as negative, unusual and shameful. Now if the Israelites were naturally black skinned Congoids they would not portray white, bright and ruddy skin positively and dark, drab and brownish skin negatively.

Judaean mosaic, Huqoq, Galilee.

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

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

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

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

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

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

15 And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.”-Revelation 1

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” take this to mean that Jesus has hair the texture of wool as they do. Of course this is not what the text actually says which is literally “white as if wool” (leukai hos erion). The comparison to wool is one of colour and not one of texture.

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

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

“16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.”
-Revelation 1

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 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.

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

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

‘Adam: The Patriarch of One Race’

‘The Origins of the Non-Adamic Races’

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

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

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

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

Syrian boys.

“Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that White folks would perish in the climates of the lands where Israel dwelt, but this is ridiculous. The Israelites recognized that excessive exposure to the sun would harm them (Psalm 121.6, Isaiah 49.10, Song of Solomon 1.6 et al.) and sought shelter from it in tents, buildings and suitable clothing. It must of course be noted that these regions were once much more temperate and lush.

Samaritan woman.

Mesopotamia and the Levant have forest lands to this day and much much more in antiquity. Even today Galilee (the nativity of Christ) has a considerable amount of woodland and grassland. Ancient Mesopotamian texts (the Israelites originated in Mesopotamia) like the Epic of Gilgamesh speak of evergreen forests as if they were at hand or very nearby. The Israelite colonists of the Exodus travelled through the desert in search of wooded lands and fertile fields which were to be found in ancient Canaan. They obviously considered the desert an inhospitable and alien environment.

Lebanese woman.

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

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

Syrian man.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The real Israelites have been dispersed to the North and the West, Tarshish (Tartessus, Iberia), Lud (Lydia, Anatolia), Persia, Meshech (Moscow, Russia), Tubal (Tobolsk, Russia), Greece, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia and Bythinia: Isaiah 49.1 & 12, 66.19, Jeremiah 3.18, 31:8, 1 Peter 1.1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘The Israelite Origins of Europa: the Phoenicians in the West’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aethiopid male example.

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

Aethiopids typically have lighter skin and sometimes wavy or moderately curly hair. Aethiopids lack the wide and flat nose of the Congoid race and rather have long and narrow noses. They have limbs of typical Caucasoid proportions which lack the extra length of the Congoid’s limbs. They are by no means Congoid either in their morphology or craniometry. In layman’s terms they appear as if the skin of a Negroe was draped over the flesh and bone of a Caucasian.

Aethiopid female example.

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

Aethiopic male example.

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

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

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

When describing the civilized Ethiopians Diodorus makes no mention of their physical characteristics, but when he mentions the savages the first things he notes are their black skin, flat noses and wooly hair. I think that if Diodorus had observed these physical traits among the civilized Ethiopians, he would not have made specific note of them among the savage Ethiopians.

The civilized Ethiopians were probably rooted in the classic gracile Mediterranean stock that Diodorus was most likely already familiar with, and which is manifest in part among the most deeply rooted bloodlines of modern Ethiopia. It is very doubtful there were any purely Adamic Ethiopians in Diodorus’ time, but certainly there was a remnant of their civilization and blood.

On page 40 of Frank E. Romer’s translation of Pomponius Mela’s De Situ Orbis Libri III we read of Leucaethiopians or “White Ethiopians” inhabiting a certain region along the Libyan Sea.

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

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

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

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

These sources do not agree on a single location for these White Ethiopians but both attest to their existence. It seems probable that these were separate colonies of the Ethiopians as the Ethiopians were dispersed over a wide geographical area during the time of Nimrod’s expansive empire. It is also probable that many fled Ethiopia in the wake of the incursions of Nilotic and Bantu tribes.

In the 4th-century AD a remnant of the Kushites continued to be perceived as distinct from the black tribes of the region. A 4th century victory stela commemorating the Axumite king Ezana contains inscriptions describing separate racial groups dwelling in ancient Nubia. The Ezana Stone names the Kasu (Kushites) and Red Noba who are both believed by scholars to have been Cushitic speakers related to the Egyptians. These are contrasted with the Black Noba population that was instead related to Nilotes and who likely spoke an Eastern Sudanic dialect. Here are some notable excerpts from the Ezana Stone showing the distinction between these tribes:

“Through the might of the Lord of All I took the field against the Noba when the people of Noba revolted, when they boasted and “He will not cross over the Takkaze,” said the Noba, when they did violence to the peoples Mangurto and Hasa and Barya, and the Black Noba waged war on the Red Noba and a second and a third time broke their oath and without consideration slew their neighbors and plundered our envoys and messengers whom I had sent to interrogate them, robbing them of their possessions and seizing their lance’s. … I arrived at the Kasu, fought them and took them prisoner at the confluence of the rivers Seda and Takaze. The towns of the Kasu with walls of stone which the Noba had taken were Tabito, Fertoti; and the troops penetrated to the territory of the Red Noba and my peoples returned safe after taking prisoners and booty, and killing by the might of the Lord of Heaven. And I erected a throne at the confluence.”

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

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

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

Aethiopid female example.

It seems God placed these Hamites between Israel and the non-Adamic sub-Saharan Congoid tribes who had begun to assault Northern Africa and the Horn of Africa. Note that Ethiopia and Egypt exist as nations (in the deracinated modern sense), but that God no longer counts them among the nations because they are all demonic hybrids today.

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

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

Some point to Jeremiah 13.23 as evidence that the Ethiopians originated as a dark 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 the Ethiopians of the time of Jeremiah to have been darkened and dissimilar to their original racial state.

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

Aethiopid male example.

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

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

Gesenius’ entry for Kuwsh.

I believe that in light of this evidence the Scriptural narrative and Christian Identity position concerning the Ethiopia of Africa is wholly validated. In Ethiopia we see a land founded by White Hamites (in my opinion the Mediterranean race).

Ham had no promise of enduring posterity as Shem does through Israel, and today the Mediterranean race is found bred into adjacent races, whether Nordids in Western Europe or Congoids in the Horn of Africa. Every land where we today see Caucasoids (be they Aethiopids, Arabids or Turanids et al.) was once a domain belonging to the Adamic race, and Ethiopia is no exception.

‘Concerning the Ancient Aethiops’


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

Relief of Egyptian men baking bread.

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.

Ramesses II.

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


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. 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.

Relief depicting an Egyptian couple.

It has been proven by archaeogenetics that the ancient Egyptians had less sub-Saharan admixture than even the modern Caucasoid inhabitants. Along with Ethiopia and Sheba, Egypt was given over to mongrelization as explained in Isaiah 43.3. Today Egypt remains technically almost exclusively Caucasoid and not Congoid and in antiquity this was all the more true.


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 as Kemet more probably refers to the rich black soil of the Nile Delta and not the skin colour of the inhabitants.

Relief depicting Nefertari and a servant.

The Hebrew word Cham (Ham, meaning “warm”, the father of the Egyptians) and kem (an Egyptian word meaning “black”) are related words by the association of darkness and heat , and this is pointed out by Gesenius in his entry for Cham. However in Hebrew the word Cham primarily refers to warmth. In archaic English use (such as in Gesenius’ time) black does not strictly refer to pitch black or to the Congoid race, but also refers to varying degrees of swarthiness relative to the typical palor of the Anglo-Saxons. Examples of such a use include “Black Irish” and “Black Dutch” which both simply refer to black haired people with Mediterrannid phenotypes. Thus Cham and kem cannot rightly be assumed to refer to Congoids.

Thutmose III

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” claim that the bondage in Egypt described in Deuteronomy 28.68 was fulfilled in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but this is easily disproven. This curse was actually fulfilled 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. Thus it was fulfilled that they were taken to Egypt as slaves but not purchased.


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

As we have seen, the “Black Hebrew Israelites” do not fit any of the blessings given to Israel. Having a mentality of victimhood as they do, they seek desperately to claim that they fit the curses placed on Israel, but they do not. These curses were fulfilled in the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities of Judah and Israel many centuries ago when the Israelites were carried captive out of their lands and later when the Romans subdued the Judaeans who had rebelled against Christ. The “Black Hebrew Israelite” interpretation of Deuteronomy 28 completely ignores the fact that almost all of those curses were to take place starting in Israel’s own lands, fields and cities and not in the land of their captivity which the “Black Hebrew Israelites” consider to be West Africa and America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Black Hebrew Israelites” like to draw attention to Jewish-African ties. They think somehow this validates their claims, but when one realizes that the Jews of today are Edomites by birth, this can only be seen as discrediting the “Black Hebrew Israelites”.

‘The Satanic Origins of the Edomite Jews’

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

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

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


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