Why can't some people accept that the Israelites were black?

[The Sparda]

It is quickly becoming common knowledge to people waking up that the Israelites were indeed a black people. It is also understood that many (if not most or all) blacks of slave descent are Israelites as well.

Why is it that in light of such information, people have such a hard time accepting these facts?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Because that is different from the stereotypical acknowledged Jew population of the last couple of centuries (including many now residing in Israel) who those same sources label later converts to Judaism.

 

[Storm]

I thought they were Semites, not African....

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Semites include several African communities because Semites is a term referring to language used; which happened to be in parts of east africa and the middle east at the time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Semitic_languages.svg

Many such groups happened to inhabit the region, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hebrew_Israelites there is evidence to suggest that some of these groups with their strong linguistic ties inhabited parties of modern day Israel; as to whether they formed a significant minority let alone majority... well I am not sold on the later, its possible I presume - and there IS significant evidence to suggest that many of the current Jewish population is descended from converts, as to the proportions, well I just do not know.

 

[fallingblood]

It is quickly becoming common knowledge to people waking up that the Israelites were indeed a black people. It is also understood that many (if not most or all) blacks of slave descent are Israelites as well.

Why is it that in light of such information, people have such a hard time accepting these facts?

Because those are not facts. They were a semitic group, but they were not black. They would have been darker, but they would have been the same color as Arabs today.

Also, African American slaves were not descended from Israelites. There really is no evidence of that, and sounds like nothing more than some conspiracy theory.

Again, people don't accept those ideas because they are not becoming common knowledge, and aren't even true.

 

[Storm]

Because those are not facts. They were a semitic group, but they were not black. They would have been darker, but they would have been the same color as Arabs today.

Also, African American slaves were not descended from Israelites. There really is no evidence of that, and sounds like nothing more than some conspiracy theory.

Again, people don't accept those ideas because they are not becoming common knowledge, and aren't even true.

Thanks for putting it better than I did.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The term 'descended' is problematic in itself though; if one of a person's great great grandparents were Israelites then technically you are descended from the Israelites, however given fifteen of the other great great grandparents were not Israelites, just how strong is such an assertion. When you are looking to claim something that you want however, that 1/16 is enough; allowing for some rather tenuous claims and it completely skews our ability to ascertain the truth in such matters. For example, by that claim, I own Ireland, its mine darn it! Oh and England! Scotland too! What else....

x.x

That said, I do believe that there would have been some black Israelites (yes even African descended Israelites), due to the linguistic similarities there was obviously contact of a sort, travel, trade and so forth; quite possibly cohabitation. But like I said, their proportion of the population is difficult to gauge. I have not seen any significant evidence on the matter.

 

[Storm]

The term 'descended' is problematic in itself though; if one of a person's great great grandparents were Israelites then technically you are descended from the Israelites, however given fifteen of the other great great grandparents were not Israelites, just how strong is such an assertion.

x.x

True enough... Technically, we're all descended from Africans.

Doesn't make my lily white butt any darker, though.

 

[The Sparda]

Because those are not facts. They were a semitic group, but they were not black. They would have been darker, but they would have been the same color as Arabs today.

Throughout scripture Israel is described as physically looking like the sons of Ham (Khawm), in appearance. Ham (Khawm) in Hebrew means BLACK, HOT AND BURNT. Ham sons are the people of the African continent, the Ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, Somalia's, Canaanites etc.

Also, African American slaves were not descended from Israelites. There really is no evidence of that, and sounds like nothing more than some conspiracy theory.

Jews were Black people who were ruthlessly persecuted by the white man (Romans). As predicted by the Messiah, in the Roman-Jewish war in A.D. 66, Jerusalem was overthrown, the Temple was destroyed and the Black Hebrews were scattered.

Seeking to escape destruction, millions of original Black Biblical Jews fled into AFRICA! Centuries later, their descendants were captured and sold into slavery in the Americas!

Again, people don't accept those ideas because they are not becoming common knowledge, and aren't even true.

Historians are now recognizing that the majority of eastern so-called “Jews” are actually “Khazars” and have NO Semitic roots whatsoever!

I guess this thing didn't recognize that my responses were written above in bold, but there they are.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

*nods head* I'm practically an albino.... but ima black...

Or at least I might say that if that would benefit me at all (for example, were I to apply for scholarships I might stress that) in the same way that some of these people stress their tenuous claim. Now look, I am sure that for SOME of them it may well be true, however the proportions involved? I do not think there is any solid anthropological evidence on the size of the black population in the region and how closely descended any one particular population is today from such a group.

There is a huge amount of evidence that MANY Jews were later converts and if true their claim to Israel is negligible. No please do not get started on whether or not Israel should exist! It does exist and that is all that needs be said on that matter. What we are talking about however is the identity of the original Israelites, not modern day Israelis.

 

[Levite]

It is quickly becoming common knowledge to people waking up that the Israelites were indeed a black people. It is also understood that many (if not most or all) blacks of slave descent are Israelites as well.

Why is it that in light of such information, people have such a hard time accepting these facts?

Because there is no reason to suppose that they were black. Brown, yes. But not black. They probably looked like any other Middle Eastern people, who tend to be olive complexioned or brown-skinned and dark of hair, especially the desert dwellers. But they are not black.

There just is no supportable reason to think that they would have been.

 

[Storm]

I guess this thing didn't recognize that my responses were written above in bold, but there they are.

How To Use the Quote Feature

 

[The Sparda]

Because there is no reason to suppose that they were black. Brown, yes. But not black. They probably looked like any other Middle Eastern people, who tend to be olive complexioned or brown-skinned and dark of hair, especially the desert dwellers. But they are not black.

There just is no supportable reason to think that they would have been.

Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origin."

The Bible classifies the Ethiopians & Jews together, "Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, “O children of Israel? Saith the Lord." (Amos 9:7) Black Paul is mistaken for an "Egyptian" and declares he himself to be a "Jew." (Acts 21:37-39, 22: 2,3)

 

[Storm]

OK... ftr I couldn't care less about the skin color of a bunch of ancient monotheists. That said, I have to ask when the Bible became a reliable source for physical anthropology?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It IS if it is that people's own accounting of history; Amos being from the old testament and the old testament being a Jewish history (of sorts).

Mind you others say that this is merely an example of ancient Jewish racism against black people - that God was saying that the Jews are merely the imperfect descendants from sinners, where the colour of the Ethiopians' skins (black) itself is used to demonstrate that they are evil (sinners).

 

[Storm]

It IS if it is that people's own accounting of history; Amos being from the old testament and the old testament being a Jewish history (of sorts).

Not really, no. Otherwise there would be historical evidence of the Exodus, for instance.

 

[The Sparda]

OK... ftr I couldn't care less about the skin color of a bunch of ancient monotheists. That said, I have to ask when the Bible became a reliable source for physical anthropology?

Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the ancient Chaldeans were Black.

 

[Levite]

Roman historian Tacitus wrote that many of his time believed that the Jews "were a race of Ethiopian origin."

The Bible classifies the Ethiopians & Jews together, "Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, “O children of Israel? Saith the Lord." (Amos 9:7)

The Bible similarly compares Jews with Canaanites, Moabites, Philistines, Arameans, and Mesopotamians. None of those comparisons have anything to do with physical appearance, any more than the comparison with the Ethiopians do. A look at such quotes in context makes it clear that the comparisons have to do either with the (mis)behavior of the Jewish People or with God's reminder that He values all peoples, and has done great things for others as well as for the Jews.

And while I would wish to see the quote from Tacitus in full context and in the original to be certain, I will also venture to say that he has been found wrong in many places. There is no reason to suppose this any other than one of those instances.

Throughout scripture Israel is described as physically looking like the sons of Ham (Khawm), in appearance. Ham (Khawm) in Hebrew means BLACK, HOT AND BURNT. Ham sons are the people of the African continent, the Ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, Somalia's, Canaanites etc.

Jews were Black people who were ruthlessly persecuted by the white man (Romans). As predicted by the Messiah, in the Roman-Jewish war in A.D. 66, Jerusalem was overthrown, the Temple was destroyed and the Black Hebrews were scattered.

Seeking to escape destruction, millions of original Black Biblical Jews fled into AFRICA! Centuries later, their descendants were captured and sold into slavery in the Americas!

I'm sorry, but there is simply no basis in history for these statements. There just isn't a shred of evidence to support such claims, any scholar of the Ancient Near East can tell you that.

Also, cham (ח&#1501 in Hebrew has nothing to do with blackness, it simply means "hot," and probably was originally a nickname referring to temperament. The word for black in Hebrew is shachor (שחו&#1512. The two words don't even share a common root, let alone meaning.

Also, Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, not 66.

And the Romans and Israelites probably had roughly similar coloring. The Romans might have been a bit lighter toned in complexion, but were definitely darker than most northern Italians-- and many southern Italians-- today, that much seems clear from the historical accounts of them.

Historians are now recognizing that the majority of eastern so-called “Jews” are actually “Khazars” and have NO Semitic roots whatsoever!

It is true that most European Jews have limited Semitic ancestry, but the notion that the majority of European Jews were Khazars is a false one. The one Jewish anthropologist who professed the idea has since retracted his claims, and no reputable science has emerged to uphold such an idea. Furthermore, there have been several studies that show that many Jews, from many worldwide communities, share certain genetic markers. Of especial note is the Kohen gene, a mitochondrial gene marker shared by over 90% of kohanim (priests) no matter which Jewish community they come from-- European, Middle Eastern, African, Asian, whatever. Today, the notion that most European Jews are descended from Khazar converts is usually used by anti-Semites in attempts to delegitimize the Jewish People. The idea should be shunned as false.

Abraham, ancestor of the Hebrews, was from Chaldea; the ancient Chaldeans were Black.

They weren't. They would have been about the same shade as modern Iraqis. Who are, by and large, not black.

 

[Storm]

Throughout scripture Israel is described as physically looking like the sons of Ham (Khawm), in appearance. Ham (Khawm) in Hebrew means BLACK, HOT AND BURNT.

My first name means "tower." Doesn't mean I'm made of bricks.

Ham sons are the people of the African continent, the Ancient Egyptians, Ethiopians, Somalia's, Canaanites etc.

The Ancient Egyptians weren't what most folk think of as "black," and I'm fair certain Canaan was in the Middle East.

Jews were Black people who were ruthlessly persecuted by the white man (Romans). As predicted by the Messiah, in the Roman-Jewish war in A.D. 66, Jerusalem was overthrown, the Temple was destroyed and the Black Hebrews were scattered.

Oh, PLEASE! The Romans "ruthlessly persecuted" anyone and everyone, including one another and people considerably paler than they were. You're veering into conspiracy nut territory here.

May I ask why this issue is so important to you?

 

[The Sparda]

The Bible similarly compares Jews with Canaanites, Moabites, Philistines, Arameans, and Mesopotamians. None of those comparisons have anything to do with physical appearance, any more than the comparison with the Ethiopians do. A look at such quotes in context makes it clear that the comparisons have to do either with the (mis)behavior of the Jewish People or with God's reminder that He values all peoples, and has done great things for others as well as for the Jews.

And while I would wish to see the quote from Tacitus in full context and in the original to be certain, I will also venture to say that he has been found wrong in many places. There is no reason to suppose this any other than one of those instances.



I'm sorry, but there is simply no basis in history for these statements. There just isn't a shred of evidence to support such claims, any scholar of the Ancient Near East can tell you that.

Also, cham (ח&#1501 in Hebrew has nothing to do with blackness, it simply means "hot," and probably was originally a nickname referring to temperament. The word for black in Hebrew is shachor (שחו&#1512. The two words don't even share a common root, let alone meaning.

Also, Jerusalem fell and the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE, not 66.

And the Romans and Israelites probably had roughly similar coloring. The Romans might have been a bit lighter toned in complexion, but were definitely darker than most northern Italians-- and many southern Italians-- today, that much seems clear from the historical accounts of them.

It is true that most European Jews have limited Semitic ancestry, but the notion that the majority of European Jews were Khazars is a false one. The one Jewish anthropologist who professed the idea has since retracted his claims, and no reputable science has emerged to uphold such an idea. Furthermore, there have been several studies that show that many Jews, from many worldwide communities, share certain genetic markers. Of especial note is the Kohen gene, a mitochondrial gene marker shared by over 90% of kohanim (priests) no matter which Jewish community they come from-- European, Middle Eastern, African, Asian, whatever. Today, the notion that most European Jews are descended from Khazar converts is usually used by anti-Semites in attempts to delegitimize the Jewish People. The idea should be shunned as false.



They weren't. They would have been about the same shade as modern Iraqis. Who are, by and large, not black.

According to Zondervan's Compact Bible Dictionary listed under Ham it defines as such:

He became the progenitor of the dark races; not the Negroes, but the Egyptians, Ethiopians, Libyans and Canaanites.[FONT=Arial, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]

The Bible refers to Egypt as Ham.

Psalms 105:23 Then Israel entered Egypt; Jacob lived as an alien in the land of Ham.

Psalm 78:51 He struck down all the firstborn of Egypt, the firstfruits of manhood in the tents of Ham. (NIV)

The "kohan" (priestly/Levitical) gene test is a joke because they don't have any true levites to test against. The only way that a Levite can be proven is through their family records which were destroyed (or stolen) during the 2nd Temple period.