We received emails from another who asserted:
EPHRAIM & MANASSEH ARE NOT THE U.S. & BRITAIN!
THE BIBLE’S EXPLAINATION OF EPHRAIM & MANASSEH’S GENETIC LINE DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR BELIEF BUT INVALIDATES IT!!
The Bible tells us that the mother of Ephraim & Manasseh (ASENATH), was an Egyptian (Because Her father was the Egyptian Priest “POTIPHERAH”: Genesis 41:45,50 & 46:20), and that The Egyptians were descended from Noah’s son Ham; HAM FATHERED THE FOLLOWING NATIONS (AFTER THE FLOOD), “ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE”:(Genesis 10:6): CUSH(Ethiopians),MIZRAIM(Egyptians), PUTH(Libyans), and CANAAN(Canaanites)! See also PSALMS:(78:51),(106:22),(105:23),(105:27), which tells us that the Egyptians were the children of HAM!
Genesis 10:6 Is telling us that the (BLACK Ethiopians), Egyptians, Libyans & Canaanites were “BROTHERS” and ALL had the same (Black Father),“HAM”! … Which means ASENATH(the Egyptian mother of Ephraim & Manasseh), Was BLACK, In case you haven’t figured it out yet Asenath’s BLACK Genetic traits would make it IMPOSSIBLE FOR HER TO GIVE BIRTH TO TWO WHITE SONS EPHRAIM & MANASSEH (U.S. & BRITAIN), NO MATTER WHAT COLOR HER HUSBAND (JOSEPH) WAS!
That view is not a fact, but an assertion based on some inaccurate assumptions.
Now, yes, the Cushites were black.
The Bible shows that Noah had three sons which were named Ham, Japtheth, and Shem. Their descendants became the three primary races, known as Negroid, Mongoloid, and Caucasoid respectively). Based on dominant and recessive genes from his parents, Ham himself likely was not black (Negroid), as it is much more likely his wife was. Similarly, it would be most likely that Japheth’s wife was Mongoloid and Shem’s wife likely Caucasoid.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the bulk of the ancient Canaanite records we have shows most of them were not what we would consider black.
Notice also the following:
Ephraim and Manasseh – were they part black Egyptian?
“And Pharaoh said to Joseph, I am Pharaoh, and
without a word from you, no man shall lift up his
hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.
And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnathpaaneah.
And he gave him Asenath, the daughter of
Potipherah, priest of On, for his wife. And Joseph
went out over the land of Egypt.” (Gen 41:44-45. Cf
also 46:20, 34)
The Bible does not state that she was an Egyptian at all. Given that On was in the Goshen area where the Hyksos or similar White tribes settled and their aristocracy settled, it is reasonable to assume that he married into that stock for the Egyptians proper were driven southwards.
Although her name is Egyptian, … a name itself is not proof for her being a Black Egyptian. and this sort of thing happens all over the world. (White C. Chart: Was Israel mixed? V. 2.2. Received via email 07/25/19)
Most Egyptians were not black, thus it is not logical to state that Joseph’s wife Asenath must have been black. As far as Joseph, himself, goes, there is a statue that some feel was made of him thousands of years ago, and the sketch I saw of that shows he was not black (see https://www.simchajtv.com/statue-of-biblical-joseph-found-story-covered-up/). And even if the statue was not Joseph, it also helps prove that most of the Egyptians were not black.
As far as having one parent black and one white notice the following:
This chart shows how that works with two parents with three white-skin alleles (gene traits), and three black-skin alleles. The use of six gene traits is just an example to show how the mixing can produce many different combinations.
Source: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/how-white-baby-can-born-4145688 accessed 07/27/19
So, with Ham’s sons, presuming he was actually 100% white and his wife 100% black, there was only a 1 of 8 chance for any of the sons to be 100% black, and basically a 50% chance that one would be–and his son Cush probably was. Yet the odds are that none of Cush’s brothers were black. So the assertion that all of Cush’s brothers would have to be black is not correct.
Notice also the following from the old Ambassador College and Radio Church of God:
The black race is composed of some of the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. Part of the black race stems from Cush (Gen. 10:6). Cush means black in Hebrew (Young’s Concordance). The word “Cush” is often translated into English by the word “Ethiopia,” but not all Cushites live in Ethiopia (an independent nation in East Africa). The Greeks called the children of Cush “Ethiopians.” That’s why we use the word in English. …
Ham had another son, Phut or Put-it is spelled both ways in the Bible. Here is what Josephus writes about the people of Phut.
Phut also was the founder of Libya (by which he means Africa), and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself: there is also a river in the country of the Moors which bears that name; whence it is that… the Grecian historiographers mention [Africa] by the “appellation of Phut” (See Antiquities, VI, 2).
Put, or Phut, then, is the father of the central Africans. The Egyptians called the region of the Sudan (which was south of Egypt) by the name of Pet. The Babylonians and Persians called a similar region “Putu” (from Smith’s Bible Dictionary and Inter. Stand. Bible Ency.).
Numerous sons of Put settled early into the western region of Mesopotamia, a few hundred miles from ancient Babylon. This is the original center of Hindi, the language of northern and central India (Ency. of World History, by Langer, p. 28).
The people who were settled in this region were uprooted by the Assyrians and driven east into India. …
Of the four sons of Ham, only Cush bears a name which means “black.” Just as some of the sons of Cush are brown so some of the children of Phut are black. (The Development of The Races. Ambassador College, 1968)
Through Ham many of the light people of North Africa arose. The black peoples throughout Africa and south east Asia also descended from Ham. (Hoeh H. The Race Question. Plain Truth, April 1957).
While some of the mixed multitude of Israel were black, and there were some blacks in Egypt, the bulk of the Egyptians were not black.
One can see that by looking at many ancient hieroglyphs. Notice some:
Blonde ancient Egyptian woman (Pixabay)
Depiction of white Egyptian woman with wings (Pixabay)
Depiction of an Egyptian woman (Pixabay)
Depiction of white Egyptian man (Pixabay)
While it is true that many Egyptians were not pale, but tanned/brown as many hieroglyphs show, like the one below:
Depiction of an Egyptian man working (Pixabay)
Yet, when you look at them, you see someone with Caucasian, not Negroid nor Mongoloid facial features. Now some ‘Black Egyptian’ advocates have objected to the use of ancient pictures as they claim that people had their skin ‘lightened’ for pictures, etc. anciently to reflect a ‘higher’ social status (which one told me). However, if that is true, it would tend to confirm that the bulk of the pharaohs would not have been black (as presumably the pharaoh would have the highest social status). But even when intentional picture ‘lightening’ may have occurred, that would not change the overall appearance from being Negroid to Caucasoid.
Furthermore, when Negroid black men (or black women) are shown, they are shown as essentially the color black on hieroglyphs I have seen. Notice the following 1820 sketch of something on the wall of the tomb of the ancient Pharaoh Seti 1 (13th century BC):
Book of Gates fresco (Wikipedia)
The man to the far left was considered to be Libyan and the far right was considered to be an Egyptian.
Most ancient Egyptians were NOT black. Some were white and some were brownish, but with Caucasian facial features.
Despite all this proof, someone challenged me on this and challenged me to “debunk” an article that asserted that the Israelites were black because supposedly the Egyptians were black. The “proof” was that the article quoted opinions of some 19th century researchers who mistakenly claimed the ancient Egyptians were black. So, to further debunk that nonsense, I looked for more evidence. Notice the following photograph:
Mummy of 19th dynasty King Ramesses II (Wikipedia)
That Egyptian leader obviously was NOT black. When I showed the above picture to one who pushes the black Israelite lie, he claimed that the photograph was faked. But, let me add that there are also numerous statues of Ramesses II and none of those show a black man either. Yet, various proponents of ‘Black Egyptianism’ still want to insist that he was Negroid, which he was not.
Notice the following statue of Prince Ra-hotep (son of Pharaoh Sneferu) and his wife Nofret:
Ra-hotep and Nofret (photo by Djehouty)
Pharaoh Sneferu would have been expected to have arranged his son’s marriage. The Prince was certainly not black (he has straight hair) and his wife was fairly white (and she is depicted in the statue with a black wig according to scholars). And though the Prince was fairly tan, he also had what would be considered as Caucasian features.
It would seem that Joseph (progenitor of Ephraim and Manasseh) likely married someone fairly white as the Bible shows that Pharaoh gave him a wife (Genesis 41:45).
Now notice the following ancient depiction of an apparent member of the Egyptian nobility hunting:
Ostracon of Egyptian hunting
(photo by Keith Schengili-Roberts)
The Egyptian hunter was white.
Some have claimed that Queen Cleopatra VII was black. Yet notice an ancient painting:
Cleopatra VII (Wikipedia)
Here is a sculpture from the first century B.C. known as the ‘Berlin Cleopatra’ since it is now in Germany:
Cleopatra VII (Sailko)
Cleopatra was clearly white.
Here are portraits that appears on the outside of mummy coffins (mummies tended to be wealthy people and/or relatives of the pharaohs) c. 1st century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.:
Fayum mummy portraits (Wikipedia)
The above people were clearly white.
What about the “Black Pharaohs”? Well, they actually tended to be Nubians from the area now known as Sudan (Page T. DNA discovery reveals genetic history of ancient Egyptians. CNN, June 23, 2017). History shows that the Nubians invaded Egypt and ruled from 744 – 656 BCE and had pharaohs there. But that was centuries after the Exodus of the Israelites (cf. c. 1446 BCE). So, those black pharaohs did not represent earlier Egyptian leaders. Nor did they remain in power in Egypt.
Now, this does NOT mean that no Egyptian pharaoh could have been black (there were different dynasties and one could have had a black wife), but that the bulk of Egyptian pharaohs were Caucasian. Do not be misled by a few photos pushing the Black Egyptian position–the bulk of ancient Egyptians simply were not Negroid.
Furthermore, notice some DNA information:
Egyptologists, writers, scholars, and others, have argued the race of the ancient Egyptians since at least the 1970’s. Some today believe they were Sub-Saharan Africans. …
The problem, it was thought, is that mummy DNA couldn’t be sequenced. But a group of international researchers, using unique methods, have overcome the barriers to do just that. They found that the ancient Egyptians were most closely related to the peoples of the Near East, particularly from the Levant. This is the Eastern Mediterranean which today includes the countries of Turkey, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The mummies used were from the New Kingdom and a later period, (a period later than the Middle Kingdom) when Egypt was under Roman rule.
Modern Egyptians share 8% of their genome with central Africans, far more than ancient ones, according to the study, published in the journal Nature Communications. The influx of Sub-Saharan genes only occurred within the last 1,500 years. This could be attributed to the trans-Saharan slave trade or just from regular, long distance trade between the two regions. Improved mobility on the Nile during this period increased trade with the interior, researchers claim. (Perry P. Were the ancient Egyptians black or white? Scientists now know. June 11, 2017 https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know)
In 2017 a genetic study was conducted on 83 mummies from Abusir in the north of Egypt (near modern-day Cairo), which constituted “the first reliable data set obtained from ancient Egyptians using high-throughput DNA sequencing methods.” The study showed that Ancient Egyptians had the greatest affinity for modern Middle Eastern (Arab, Levantine and Anatolian) populations, and had significantly more affinity with southeastern Europeans than with sub-Saharan Africans. … “absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%.” This level of sub-Saharan African ancestry is significantly lower than that of modern Egyptians from Abusir, who “range from 14 to 21%. (Black Egyptian hypothesis. Wikipedia, accessed 12/16/19)
Our analyses reveal that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. This analysis establishes ancient Egyptian mummies as a genetic source to study ancient human history and offers the perspective of deciphering Egypt’s past at a genome-wide level. (Schuenemann, Verena; Peltzer, Alexander; Welte, Beatrix (30 May 2017). “Ancient Egyptian mummy genomes suggest an increase of Sub-Saharan African ancestry in post-Roman periods”. Nature Communications. 8: 15694. Bibcode:2017NatCo…815694S. doi:10.1038/ncomms15694. PMC 5459999. PMID 28556824. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5459999/ accessed 12/21/19
After I gave some of the above information to one who pushes the black Israelite view, he suggested that the DNA evidence was falsified.
Another claim to debunk in the article I was referred to is that Caucasian people’s skin cannot turn white from things like leprosy. Scriptures like Leviticus 13:4 were cited, which states:
4 But if the bright spot is white on the skin of his body, and does not appear to be deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, then the priest shall isolate the one who has the sore seven days.
Yet, that does not prove the black Isrealite position. The reality is that, other than albinos, no one’s skin is actually white–and even with them, bright white spots are possible. Obviously, Israelites who would have tended toward being tanned or olived toned could show signs of ‘bright white spots’ consistent with Leviticus 13:4. Thus, yes, “white people” can have parts of their skin turn white. And, I have seen this happen, clinically (though not from leprosy, but from forms of vitiligo), to white people.
Another argument is that Egypt means “black land” and that proves people were black. No, it does not. Consider the following:
The name “Egypt” is believed to have come from the original name of Egypt’s ancient capital Memphis, “Hout ka-Ptah,” meaning “Castle of the ka of Ptah.” This name was often used even for the country as a whole.
The name came to be shortened and slightly transformed. Considering the original consonants h-t-k-p-t (pronounced), the three latter survived into respectively “k-p-t”, “q-p-t” or “g-p-t.” This was rendered into the Greek, ‘Aegyptus’, and later English: Egypt.
The name of Egypt during ancient times, especially the Old Kingdom, was, however Kemet, meaning “Black land.” This referred to the fertile soil of the Nile valley. Sometimes an opposite denotation was applied; Deshret, meaning “Red land.” This referred to the desert, which also back then was the dominant landscape of the Egyptian territory.
Today, the national name for Egypt is Misr, which comes from Arabic, and means simply “land” or “fortress”, referring to the earliest Arabic settlements on Egyptian soil, located south of what would become Cairo.
(Egypt. Meaning of the name. Looklex Encyclopedia. accessed 02/18/20 )
Therefore, the name does NOT prove that the residents were black as it would make little sense for them to name the country after the color of the people as many lands to the south also had black people. But naming it related to the land itself is more consistent with what seems to have happened.
Perhaps it should be mentioned that I went through an article titled 10 Arguments That Prove Ancient Egyptians Were Black (Moore A. Atlanta Black Star, October 25, 2013, https://atlantablackstar.com/2013/10/25/10-arguments-that-proves-ancient-egyptians-were-black/)–but those arguments were NOT proof. They were assertions that other evidence, not generally in the article, refutes.
Anyway, despite claims, the bulk of the ancient Egyptians were not black.
Nor were the bulk of the Israelites.
Now look at the following:
Mereneptah Stele (Wikipedia)
The Mereneptah Stele is dated to the 1200s BC. This actually mentions the children of Israel and also shows that the Egyptians at that time were not mainly black.
See now the following:
Berlin Pedestal (Biblical Archaeology Society)
The Berlin Pedestal may be the oldest archeological discovery that mentions “Israel.” This was from the 1400s B.C. and shows three Israeli captives. The children of Israel were captives of the Egyptians for the first half of that century. Anyway, the three enslaved males are NOT black but have more of a Caucasian Middle Eastern appearance. That evidence is also consistent with the view of most modern scholars who consider that the Jews are from a Mediterranean branch of Caucasoids.
The following is from the 9th century BCE Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III:
Israeli King Jehu bowing before Shalmaneser III
Note that the hair and beard of the bowing Israeli king is consistent with being Caucasoid and not Negroid or Mongoloid.
Consider also the following:
Some scholars have decided to test the validity of the claim that there exists Jews of African descent. Parfitt came to the conclusion that the Lemba people of Zimbabwe may have some connection to ancient Jewish populations based on historical and anthropological research.56 Moreover, a geneticist named Trefor Jenkins found that the Lembas had 50 percent Y chromosomes that were Semitic in origin and 40 percent Negroid.57 This test seems to verify the existence of Jews of African descent. Though this may seem to confirm the Hebrew Israelites’ claim, it implies only that those who can trace their heritage to the Lemba are likely ethnically Jewish. Contrarily, the Falashas of Ethiopia, whom the Black Hebrew Israelites use to prove their validity, were proven to have no biological connection to the ancient biblical Israelites through genetic testing.58 Therefore, the myth that the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba became the first king of Ethiopia conflicts with the available scientific evidence.
Thus, the reader should conclude that unless one can show that all African Americans originate from the Lemba tribe, Hebrew Israelites have no basis for the claim that all African Americans are descendants of the ancient Hebrews. It is false to reason that the existence of some African Hebrew descendants proves the claim that all African Americans are Israelites. (Butts J. The Origin and Insufficiency of the Black Hebrew Israelite Movement. CRI, June 21, 2017 accessed 07/24/19)
Now let’s look at some scriptures:
2 The precious sons of Zion … 7 Her Nazirites were brighter than snow And whiter than milk; They were more ruddy in body than rubies, Like sapphire in their appearance. 8 Now their appearance is blacker than soot; They go unrecognized in the streets; Their skin clings to their bones, It has become as dry as wood. (Lamentations 4:2, 7-8)
The above is saying that they were very white, but after disaster they would be unrecognizable.
It brings to mind something about Job:
7 So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord, and struck Job with painful boils from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head. 8 And he took for himself a potsherd with which to scrape himself while he sat in the midst of the ashes. (Job 2:7-8)
Notice what Job later said:
30 My skin grows black and falls from me; My bones burn with fever. (Job 30:30)
Job was not black or would not have said that. But with his affliction and the ashes, he said he skin was growing black.
Job lived in Uz (Job 1:1) which is in the an area near Ur of the Chaldeans (Matthew Henry’s Commentary), which is where Abram was from (Genesis 11:28-31).
Now, various ones, like the late Raymond McNair believe that Job was the builder of the great pyramid and that historical evidence shows that his daughter was blond and white (Key to Northwest European Origins. AuthorHouse, 2012, pp. 64-65). Notice something about that:
The pigmenation of the Egyptians was usually a brunette white … the daughter of Cheops, the builder of the great pyramid is shown in the coloured bas reliefs of her tomb to have been a definite blonde. Her hair is painted bright yellow stippled with fine red horizontal lines. This is the earliest known evidence of blondism in the world. (Coon, The Races, p. 98) (as cited in McNair R, p. 65)
Even if this is not referring to Job’s daughter, but instead an Egyptian, again we see evidence of people who were white.
Isaac’s brother-in-law and Jacob’s father-law was named Laban. The 19th century, Hitchcock’s New and Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible defines Laban to mean ” white; shining; gentle; brittle.” Laban’s sister was Isaac’s wife Rebekah and his daughters were Jacob’s wives Leah and Rachel. The name Laban would not seem to be describing a black man.
The word Lebanon is related to Laban and means:
(the) white mountain (from its snow) (Biblesoft’s New Exhaustive Strong’s Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
Thus, it would make sense that the name Laban would have something to do with whiteness.
David seems to have been white based on the following description:
12 Now he was ruddy, with bright eyes (1 Samuel 16:12)
Ruddy means red or rosy. Many believe this points to David having red hair.
Notice the following related to Esther, whose cousin Mordecai was of the tribe of Benjamin called a Jew (Esther 2:5-7):
ESTHER — A FAIR PERSON
Now let us notice that Esther, who became Queen of the Persian Empire, was a lightor fair-skinned person. She was of the tribe of Benjamin (Esther 2:5).
“He [Mordecai] brought up… Esther… and the maid was fair and beautiful” (Esther 2:7). This word “fair” is the same word that was used when speaking of Sarah. It means “to be bright” and is the only place in all the book of Esther where this word is used. We read that Vashti, the former haughty queen, was “fair” (ibid., 1:11). But the Hebrew word used here is a different word, and does not mean “to be bright,” but it means to be beautiful.
We read also of “fair young virgins” (ibid., 2:2, 3). But the Hebrew word “yawfeh” is not used in regard to any of these women, but is used only in chapter 2, verse 7 in connection with Queen Esther. She had a “bright” or light skin.(McNair, p. 48)
Notice also:
THE ISRAELITES WERE PREDOMINANTLY NORDICS
Now let us go to history and also to the Scriptures to prove what the pre–captivity people of the Twelve Tribes of Israel were really like.
Professor Sayce makes the following significant comment:
The names of the Jewish towns captured by the Egyptian King Soshenk … recorded on the walls of the temple of Karnak are each surmounted with the head and shoulders of a prisoner. Casts have been made of the heads by Sir Flinders Petrie, and the racial type represented by them turns out to be Amorite and not Jewish (Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, pp. 115,116).
The Egyptian king who made these lifelike engravings of “Amorite” prisoners from the land of Israel was Pharaoh SOSHENK!
What does Professor Sayce mean when he states that these Palestinian prisoners turned out to be “Amorite” and not Jews after all? By “Amorite” he means they were a blond, Nordic type! He further states that
“David… was blond and red–haired (ibid.)! It is plain that the Amorite belonged tothe blond race. His blue eyes and light hair prove this incontestably. So also does the colour of his skin, when compared with that of other races depicted by the Egyptian artists. At Madianet Habu, for example, where the skin of the Amorite is pale pink,that of the Lebu or Libyan and the Mashuash or Masyes is red like that of the Egyptians, though we know that the Libyans belonged to a distinctively faircomplexioned race. In a tomb (No. 34) of the Eighteenth Dynasty, at Thebes, the Amorite chief of Kadesh has a white skin, and a light red–brown eyes and hair… (ibid., pp. 167,168).
Note carefully Professor Sayce’s remarks, as they have a very important bearing upon the conclusions which will be drawn later. We shall see that Sayce and others call theIsraelites “Amorites” —though the people of Israel were not Amorites in the true sense. The original Amorites were descendants of Ham (through his son, Canaan), and were darkcomplexioned like all of Ham’s descendants (Gen. 10:15–20).
Sayce then goes on to show that at that time a line of blonds extended all the way from the northern coast of Africa east to the corner of the Mediterranean, then north to Coele–Syria, and that this was only broken by the Delta of Egypt, where we know darker people have always lived.
BLOND ISRAELITES CALLED AMORITES
These statements show clearly that these Israelitish “Amorites” were a blond race. Now let us go back and analyze the statement made by Professor Sayce in regard to the campaign of SOSHENK, the Egyptian Pharaoh. According to Professor Sayce (and many historians give similar accounts), Pharaoh, in his campaign against Israel, took a number of prisoners. These so–called “Jewish” prisoners turn out to be “Amorite” —according to Professor Sayce! A
lso remember that a number of paintings, according to Professor Sayce and other sources, show that the Amorites were definitely a blond race. Their features were more like the North–west Europeans of today.It should be pointed out, however, that the Pharaoh who took these Israelitish prisoners (called “Amorites”) was the So mentioned in II Kings17:4. It was So, Pharaoh of Egypt, who recorded his conquests on the walls of the Temple at Karnak.Whether these Israelitish prisoners were taken in the time of Rehoboam or at the later date (in the time of Hoshea —King of Ten–Tribed Israel), the fact remains that the prisoners were taken from the people of Israel. They were definitely a blond race! (McNair, p. 43)
Dr. James Tabor reported that he found hair of an ancient Israelite man in something called the Shroud of the Tomb:
One of the more fascinating finds in this tomb, one that has not received much attention, was the preservation of a sample of Jewish male hair. The hair was lice-free, and was trimmed or cut evenly, probably indicating that the family buried in this tomb practiced good hygiene and grooming. The length of the hair was medium to short, averaging 3-4 inches. The color was reddish. (Tabor J. The Only Ancient Jewish Male Hair Ever Found. Biblical Archaeology.org, September 27, 2012. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/the-only-ancient-jewish-hair-ever-found/ accessed 07/24/19)
That is supportive of the view that the ancient Israelites were not black Africans. There also was earlier found braided hair of a woman at Masada:
The length of the hair indicates that it was from a woman. The color is now quite dark, but since hair darkens as it ages its original shade cannot be determined. (Gorski A, Zias J. Capturing a Beautiful Woman at Masada. c. 2007. https://www.academia.edu/25836648/Capturing_a_Beautiful_Woman_at_Masada accessed 07/24/19)
Quite dark would indicate that it was not originally black–hence it would have been blond, brown, or red. A picture of it in the above paper indicates that the indivual hair strands were round like Caucasoids have. It was not flat/kinked as Negroids have. This also would indicate she was not a black African.
Now some claim she was not an Israelite, but most scholarly sources I checked with believe that she was.
Getting back to the Tomb of the Shroud, it is about 2,000 years old. There were about 20 Jews buried there. Note some information about the DNA result:
Mitochondrial DNA analysis confirmed the locks of hair were contextually associated with the skeletal remains found in loculus SC1. … The haplotype designations for mtDNA analyses are population categorizations that have been used extensively in the past to infer population movements. The haplotypes for the Tomb of the Shroud individuals are commonly distributed throughout the North of Africa and the Middle East through to Eastern Europe. The tomb occupants exhibit a number of different maternal influences. The maternal relatedness of these individuals supports inferences that this Akeldama site was a family tomb which was in use in the first-century C.E. (Matheson CD, et al. Molecular Exploration of the First-Century Tomb of the Shroud in Akeldama, Jerusalem. PLOS One. December 16, 2009 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008319)
Hence, 2,000 years ago, those Jews of the family that were buried there were not black Africans. The DNA 2,000 years ago is consistent with recent research on the Jews:
A series of analyses was performed to address whether modern Jewish Y-chromosome diversity derives mainly from a common Middle Eastern source population or from admixture with neighboring non-Jewish populations during and after the Diaspora. Despite their long-term residence in different countries and isolation from one another, most Jewish populations were not significantly different from one another at the genetic level. Admixture estimates suggested low levels of European Y-chromosome gene flow into Ashkenazi and Roman Jewish communities. A multidimensional scaling plot placed six of the seven Jewish populations in a relatively tight cluster that was interspersed with Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations, including Palestinians and Syrians. Pairwise differentiation tests further indicated that these Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations were not statistically different. The results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population, and suggest that most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora. (Hammer MF, et al. Jewish and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations share a common pool of Y-chromosome biallelic haplotypes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2000 Jun 6; 97(12): 6769–6774)
Jews were not originally black and displaced by white people like some have erroneously claimed.
Notice also something from the Song of Solomon:
10 My beloved is white and ruddy, (Song of Solomon 5:10, NKJV)
10 My beloved is white and ruddy, (Song of Solomon 5:10, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh 1917)
The beloved is said to have been white. Now the Hebrew word צַ×— tsach translated as white does not necessarily mean the color white, though it can. It means bright or dazzling.
Now, the famous Hebrew Rabbi known as Rashi wrote the following about the above:
My beloved is pure white. White, as in, “they were whiter צַחוּ than milk.”
(Rashi on Song of Songs 5:10, https://www.sefaria.org/Rashi_on_Song_of_Songs.5.10.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en accessed 07/23/19)
But now notice something else from the Song of Solomon:
5 I am dark, but lovely,
O daughters of Jerusalem,
Like the tents of Kedar,
Like the curtains of Solomon.
6 Do not look upon me, because I am dark,
Because the sun has tanned me. (Song of Solomon 1:5-6)
Notice that the women is black from the sun. She would not have said that if she was black from birth. White people can tan to be quite dark from the sun. Yet at least one proponent of black Israelism has improperly pointed to Song of Solomon 1:5 as ‘proof.’
Notice the following related to Moses:
1 Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married; for he had married an Ethiopian woman. (Numbers 12:1, NKJV)
1 And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman. (Numbers 12:1, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh 1917)
The word translated as “Ethiopian” is word Kuwshiy, which according to Biblesoft’s New Exhaustive Strong’s Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary means descendants of Cush. Or in other words, people of dark color–and it is commonly translated as Cush or Cushite in many Old Testament passages.
Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because he had married a black woman as Cushites are black (dark-skinned Africans). If Moses was black, then it would not seem that they would have proceeded with their charge against him.
Notice also something that Jeremiah wrote:
23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? (Jeremiah 13:23, NKJV)
23 Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin? (Jeremiah 13:23, NLT)
Again, this is the Hebrew word Kuwshiy. It would make no sense that Jeremiah would refer to a different people if his own people were black. Furthermore, it should be noted that Jeremiah took the king’s daughters (cf. Jeremiah 43:6) to the British Isles and the current queen is a descendant. And Queen Elizabeth II is white.
Notice also the following:
24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, 26 esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward. (Hebrews 11:24-27)
Two points related to the above. 1) A Black Hebrew advocate stated that many of the Pharaohs seem to have been white, but most of the Egyptians were black. 2) While most Egyptians were not black, if Moses refused to be considered to be called the son a Pharaoh’s daughter, it is logical that he was basically white. Otherwise, it is not possible for him to pass as “Pharaoh’s daughter.”
Of course, not all with the Israelites were white as the Bible teaches, “A mixed multitude went up with them also” (Exodus 12:38). Furthermore, I had a university professor who looked Chinese but said he was Jewish. So, yes there was some interbreeding. And yes, there are black people who also interbred with Jews and other Israelites.
Some have tried to claim that the Jews were black, hence Jesus was black. Because of that claim, I also located some photos of 1st century A.D. coins–the century Jesus was executed in. After General Titus conquered Jerusalem in 70 A.D., Emperor Vespasian issued coins–the back side of which shows conquered Jews:
Titus on left, Jewish man on bottom right (CNG coins)
Vespasian on left, captured Jewish soldiers on right, 71 A.D. (CNG coins)
Notice the the Jews were not African (which is clear from the hair of the man on the first coin as well as the hair of the man to the left of the second coin). The second coin inscription in Latin Ivdea means Judea. These coins are clear evidence that the Jews of the first century–like Jesus–were not black Africans.
If most Jews of Jesus’ time were black, the coins would have been expected to portray that–but they do not. These are absolute proof, no matter what color people may think the ancient Egyptians were or what their DNA was. The issue is whether the ancient Jews of Jesus’ were predominantly black–the Roman coins prove that they were not.
Various people who claim that the Jews in the tiny nation of Israel are not ethnically Jews claim that a group from an area north of Turkey, just above Georgia, called the Khazars converted to Judaism about 1300 years ago. And that the descendants of these 8th century A.D. Khazars dominate the nation of Israel. Black Israelite adherents point to that to explain why most Israelis are not black. But since there is much archeological evidence PRIOR to the 8th century A.D. that the Hebrews were not Negroes, that makes the Kharar claims (even if they were accurate) irrelevant.
The ‘Black Israelites’ are clearly wrong about Judah being Negroes as they claim:
Poster outlining the Black Hebrew Israelite identification of the Twelve Tribes of Israel with modern peoples of color
(Streetphotographernyctlv)
The Bible teaches Jesus was a Jew:
9 Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered … (John 4:9-10).
Also, the geneaology of Jesus as listed in both Matthew’s (1:1-3) and Luke’s accounts (3:23-33) teach that Jesus was a descendant of Judah, hence a Jew.
Notice that Jesus passed through a crowd:
28 So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. 30 Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way. (Luke 4:28-30)
Hence, Jesus was the same race as the rest of the Jews or He would have been able to easily identify and would not have blended in with the crowd (plus Judas would not have had to be paid to point Him out; cf. Mark 14:10,43-44).
Since the bulk of the Jews were basically white by race, so was Jesus. Jesus would have been essentially a tanned/olive color of a Caucasian person. He likely had dark colored hair.
We have no original pictures of Jesus.
Is Ephraim now represented by Puerto Rico and Manasseh by Cuba as some Black Hebrews claim?
No.
Consider the following:
8 Then Israel saw Joseph’s sons, and said, “Who are these?”
9 Joseph said to his father, “They are my sons, whom God has given me in this place.”
And he said, “Please bring them to me, and I will bless them.” 10 Now the eyes of Israel were dim with age, so that he could not see. Then Joseph brought them near him, and he kissed them and embraced them. 11 And Israel said to Joseph, “I had not thought to see your face; but in fact, God has also shown me your offspring!”
12 So Joseph brought them from beside his knees, and he bowed down with his face to the earth. 13 And Joseph took them both, Ephraim with his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh with his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near him. 14 Then Israel stretched out his right hand and laid it on Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand on Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands knowingly, for Manasseh was the firstborn. 15 And he blessed Joseph, and said:
“God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked,
The God who has fed me all my life long to this day,
16 The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil,
Bless the lads;
Let my name be named upon them,
And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;
And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”
17 Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 18 And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.”
19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.”
20 So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel will bless, saying, ‘May God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh!'” And thus he set Ephraim before Manasseh. (Genesis 48:8-20)
While the British Empire grew to become “a multitude of nations,” this is not really the case of Puerto Rico. And while many will consider that the USA became “great,” Cuba is not in the same league. Thus, Angl-Saxon-Celtic-American-British-Israelism is much more consistent with the prophecies of Jacob (for more details, see Anglo – America in Prophecy & the Lost Tribes of Israel).
Getting back to ancient artifacts, very little from the ancient world is in color.
But some materials beyond hieroglyphs and some paintings are.
For example, are you familiar with the mosaics from the Huqoq synagogue of the early 400s A.D.?
One of the reasons I reported about all of this is because of several people who have repeatedly tried to insist that the ancient Hebrews and Jews were black.
While there was a ‘mixed multitude’ that went with the Israelites out of the land of Egpyt (Exodus 12:38), it is like some were black. But to try to insist that most Israelites were black is not the case.
The Apostle Paul wrote:
3 Let no one deceive you by any means (2 Thessalonians 2:3)
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head — Christ — 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:11-16)
Some make emotional appeals. Some misinterpret scripture. Some twist doctrines to suit their own agendas and desires.
Yet, part of the purpose of having the faithful ministry is to prevent deception.
Notice something Jesus foretold:
9 Indeed I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie — indeed I will make them come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you. (Revelation 3:9)
Basically, the ‘Black Israelites’ are neither physical Jews, spiritual Jews, or true Church of God Christians. Some claim that Revelation 3:9 is a reference to non-blacks who claim to be Jews, when in reality that is a prophecy about people claiming to be spiritual Jews–Christians (cf. Romans 2:29)–who are not.
Before going further, notice the following:
Black Hebrew Israelism has roots in Black Judaism … Its basic belief is that American blacks are the real descendants of the Hebrews of the Old Testament, and that those who today call themselves Jews are lying about being the Bible’s chosen people. Many followers believe that whites and Jews will soon be either killed or enslaved as payback from God for their role in enslaving Africans in the Americas. …
Perhaps the most bizarre thing about Black Hebrew Israelism is the way it mirrors, with only a change in color, the ideas of Christian Identity. Identity is an important white supremacist theology practiced in many Klan groups, along with other entities like the once-important Aryan Nations. (Potok M. The Strange History of the Black Hebrew Israelites, as Group is Tied to Jersey City Murders. Daily Beast, December 12, 2019)
While it is true that many of the end time descendants of Israel who are white are subject to slavery according to the Bible (see Will the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic Nations be Divided and Have People Taken as Slaves?), it is not because their ancestors were involved with the slave trade (plus that would include blacks as well as black leaders were an instrumental in providing the slaves that came to the Americas). It should also be pointed out that in the CCOG we DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SO-CALLED ‘CHRISTIAN IDENTITY’ MOVEMENT IS CORRECT OR CHRISTIAN.
For clues to the end time physical identities of the children of Israel, notice what the Bible records:
1 And Jacob called his sons and said, “Gather together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days:
2 “Gather together and hear, you sons of Jacob, And listen to Israel your father.
3 “Reuben, you are my firstborn, My might and the beginning of my strength, The excellency of dignity and the excellency of power. 4 Unstable as water, you shall not excel, Because you went up to your father’s bed; Then you defiled it–He went up to my couch.
5 “Simeon and Levi are brothers; Instruments of cruelty are in their dwelling place. 6 Let not my soul enter their council; Let not my honor be united to their assembly; For in their anger they slew a man, And in their self-will they hamstrung an ox. 7 Cursed be their anger, for it is fierce; And their wrath, for it is cruel! I will divide them in Jacob And scatter them in Israel.
8 “Judah, you are he whom your brothers shall praise; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father’s children shall bow down before you. 9 Judah is a lion’s whelp; From the prey, my son, you have gone up. He bows down, he lies down as a lion; And as a lion, who shall rouse him? 10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people. 11 Binding his donkey to the vine, And his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, He washed his garments in wine, And his clothes in the blood of grapes. 12 His eyes are darker than wine, And his teeth whiter than milk.
13 “Zebulun shall dwell by the haven of the sea; He shall become a haven for ships, And his border shall adjoin Sidon.
14 “Issachar is a strong donkey, Lying down between two burdens; 15 He saw that rest was good, And that the land was pleasant; He bowed his shoulder to bear a burden, And became a band of slaves.
16 “Dan shall judge his people As one of the tribes of Israel. 17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, A viper by the path, That bites the horse’s heels So that its rider shall fall backward. 18 I have waited for your salvation, O LORD!
19 “Gad, a troop shall tramp upon him, But he shall triumph at last.
20 “Bread from Asher shall be rich, And he shall yield royal dainties.
21 “Naphtali is a deer let loose; He uses beautiful words.
22 “Joseph is a fruitful bough, A fruitful bough by a well; His branches run over the wall. 23 The archers have bitterly grieved him, Shot at him and hated him. 24 But his bow remained in strength, And the arms of his hands were made strong By the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob (From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel), 25 By the God of your father who will help you, And by the Almighty who will bless you With blessings of heaven above, Blessings of the deep that lies beneath, Blessings of the breasts and of the womb. 26 The blessings of your father Have excelled the blessings of my ancestors, Up to the utmost bound of the everlasting hills. They shall be on the head of Joseph, And on the crown of the head of him who was separate from his brothers.
27 “Benjamin is a ravenous wolf; In the morning he shall devour the prey, And at night he shall divide the spoil.”
28 All these are the twelve tribes of Israel, and this is what their father spoke to them. And he blessed them; he blessed each one according to his own blessing (Genesis 49:1-28).
We in the Continuing Church of God believe that the descendants of Israel traveled to many places. While the following list may need some adjustment, it basically reflects where many of us have been taught those descendants went (even though some of each are scattered throughout many lands)–plus there are more details in the links next to many of the tribes:
- Reuben – France (dignified but troubled, Genesis 49:3-4; see also The ‘Lost Tribe’ of Reuben: France in Prophecy?)
- Judah – The nation now called Israel as well as the Jews not in that land but who were from the area near Jerusalem (Ezra 4:12; see also Location of Judah: This tribe is not ‘lost’)
- Simeon – Scattered throughout the tribes (Genesis 49:5)
- Levi – Scattered throughout the tribes (Genesis 49:5)
- Issachar – Finland (sits between Europe and Russia, Genesis 49:14)
- Zebulun – Netherlands (haven by the sea, Genesis 49:13) and a few in South Africa (see also Ten clues tying Zebulun with the Dutch)
- Gad – Switzerland (will apparently have to temporarily accept EU domination, Genesis 49:19; see also Could the Swiss be descended from Israel’s son Gad? Is Switzerland prepared for the coming collapse? )
- Dan – Denmark, Ireland (on the outskirts–Genesis 49:17; the tribe that named places “Dan”, Judges 18:12,29) (those in Northern Ireland mainly are descended from the Ephraim)
- Asher – Belgium, Luxembourg (wealthy, Genesis 49:20; see also Ten clues tying Belgium and Luxembourg with the tribe of Asher)
- Naphtali – Sweden (attractively described, Genesis 49:21; see also Ten Prophetic Clues Concerning Naphtali – Sweden)
- Benjamin – Norway, Iceland (former vikings, cf. Genesis 49:27; see also Bert Otten on descendants of the tribe of Benjamin: Western Vikings)
- Ephraim – Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and probably some in South Africa and Zimbabwe (company of nations, Genesis 48:19; watch British are the Covenant People ; also see and Bert Otten gives his reasons why the UK and USA descended from the Tribe of Joseph)
- Manasseh – United States of America (blessed nation, Genesis 48:19; see also Bert Otten gives his reasons why the UK and USA descended from the Tribe of Joseph)
These are the countries that contain the physical cities of Israel that Jesus apparently was referring to in Matthew 10:22-23. Countries like Sweden, Belgium Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, France, Denmark, Ireland, and Iceland seem to fit some of the positive statements in Genesis 49–but they will ultimately face tests and trials from the coming European Beast power (cf. Ezekiel 5:4; 39:23,28), as Ezekiel 5:4 seems to show that after the USA is eliminated, fire will spread to “all the house of Israel.” Some of the Israelite nations will temporarily support the Beast power (for writings related to Reuben, check out the article The ‘Lost Tribe’ of Reuben: France in Prophecy?).
Perhaps it should to be pointed out that several of the ‘Israelite nations’ are ethnically mixed (per Davidiy Y. The Tribes, 4th edition. Russell-David Publishers, 2011 and other sources) and it may take them some time for the actual Israelites to separate out. (Information on the ‘ten lost tribes’ is also in the YouTube sermon titled Where are the Ten Lost Tribes? Why does it matter?)
The Continuing Church of God also has a sermon titled Where are the Ten Lost Tribes? Why does it matter?, which is at its ContinuingCOG channel.
Where are the ‘lost tribes’? Why are there considered to be ten lost tribes of Israel? Did the United States descend from Manasseh and Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand descend from Ephraim? Are the American and British descended peoples Israelites? Where is America in Bible prophecy? Where is Britain in Bible prophecy? Who are the 12 Tribes of Israel? Where are the lost ten tribes of Israel? What About Northern Europe? Are critics of ‘British-Israelism’ such as Walter Martin wrong? What does the Bible teach? What do the lessons of history teach? Here is a link to that sermon: Where are the Ten Lost Tribes? Why does it matter?
Part of the reason that this knowledge matters is because of what Bible prophecy teaches.
It has been said that a picture is like 1000 words.
The coins shown are clear proof that in the first century, the bulk of the Jews were Caucasian.
Do not be among those that love and believe a lie (cf. Revelation 22:15)–Black Israelism is simply not true.
The pictures, statues, coins, and scriptures here should demonstrate to any open to the truth on this matter that the early Hebrews, including the children of Israel, were not primarily black. Hence their end time descendants are not predominantly black either.
How does Jesus now look?
The Apostle John recorded the following:
12 Then I turned to see the voice that spoke with me. And having turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the seven lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed with a garment down to the feet and girded about the chest with a golden band. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes like a flame of fire; 15 His feet were like fine brass, as if refined in a furnace, and His voice as the sound of many waters; (Revelation 1:12-16)
Fine brass is not black. But, of course is not pure white. As far as the hair goes, John said it was white like wool. Some have interpreted that to mean that it must have been curly, and that points to a black person–but John did not state the hair was curly. It is likely, however, that the version of Jesus that John saw in Revelation had characteristics of all races. This we will all find out later.
That being said, consider that most predominantly black people are Gentiles. And, as prophesied, God is calling many Gentiles in this age and will not return until the fullness/full number of Gentiles comes in (cf. What About Romans 11:25 and the Full Number of the Gentiles?).
For those who are unsure about Jesus’ ‘color,’ it should also be emphasized that race is NOT a determinant of salvation (cf. Romans 2:9-11; see also God’s Grace is For All).
Jesus stated:
32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself. (John 12:32)
ALL PEOPLES means people of all colors and culture backgrounds.
So, while Jesus was not black, He is calling people of all races. And according to scripture, people of all backgrounds will be converted and saved.
While race is NOT a salvation issue, misunderstanding the identities of the ancient Hebrews leads to misunderstanding biblical prophecies and other teachings of scripture.
A related sermon is available:
Here is a link to the sermon video: Were Ancient Hebrews Black? What About Jesus?
