Were the Hebrews black or white skinned?

Answer 1

Black Israelite Answer

Moses was born a Hebrew - Israelite from the tribe of Levi (Exodus 2:1-3). He spent 40 years in the House of Pharaoh (Acts 7:23) and from the time he was an infant, passed as the Pharaoh's grandson (Exodus 2: 6, 10). This was during the same time that Pharaoh ordered all Hebrew males under the age of two to be killed. So, if Pharaoh, was a black-skinned descendant of Khawm / Ham, which he was, it would of course follow that Moses was black-skinned also. Ham (Khawm) in Hebrew means BLACK, HOT AND BURNT. All four of Ham's sons and their descendants settled in and around the Continent of Africa. This includes the so called "Middle East" that is also a part of the Continent of Africa.

Let us begin with the story of Jacob's second Youngest son Joseph, and his time in Egypt. Joseph was one of the twelve sons of Jacob (Yaaqob in Hebrew). Jacob sired Joseph in his old age, and he was clearly his favorite son. This caused Joseph's brothers to become jealous of him. Ultimately, their jealousy resulted in Joseph being sold by Arab merchants as a slave to Egyptians. Over the course of time Joseph became Viceroy of Egypt and was second in command to Pharaoh in authority. There was a famine in Canaan, where Jacob and his sons lived. (Pharaoh had a dream which Joseph interpreted. His dream told of the forthcoming famine and gave Egypt an opportunity to prepare by storing food.) So, Jacob sent his ten sons to Egypt to buy bread. When Joseph's ten brothers came into Egypt they were brought before him. Joseph recognized his brothers, but they didn't recognize him (Genesis 42:1-8). Since the biblical Egyptians were a black-skinned people, Joseph had to be black-skinned also. If he were white skinned, as over half the world's Jews are today, his brothers would have recognized him easily among the black- skinned Egyptians, or they would have been very curious as to why this white-skinned Hebrew was ruling in Egypt. But his brothers just thought Joseph was another Egyptian. The ancient Egyptians of Joseph time were indeed what we know today as black skinned. This is a fact attested to by many.

• Jewish answer:

Just as today, Israelites came in differing skin-tones, heights, and body-types. Our tradition is that the twelve sons of Jacob (the 12 Tribes) were not completely similar to each other in appearance, though none of them was really dark-skinned (Rashi commentary on Genesis 12:11).
Abraham himself came from Western Asia, and since Jews have intermarried very little in the last 3800 years, he probably looked like Jews today.
Now consider a few points:

The Israelites did not "mix" (have sexual relations) with the Egyptians (Rashi commentary, Numbers ch.26).

DNA studies have shown that Africans are not related to Jews.

Nowhere does it state that Pharaoh was Black. Egypt has been ruled by non-Blacks too, such as the Hyksos.

Nowhere does it state that Moses was thought of as Pharaoh's physical progeny. Everyone knew that Pharaoh's daughter had adopted him.

Not all of Ham's descendants settled around the Horn of Africa. Concerning Canaan it states explicitly that some of them spread far afield (Genesis ch.10).

Joseph was not recognized because, for the first time, his brothers saw him with a full beard (Talmud, Ketubot 27b). Additionally, most Egyptians were olive skin-toned just as they are today. Even assuming that the Egyptians were Black, the presence of a non-Black in Egypt would not have been surprising since the land was at that time inundated with foreigners (Genesis 41:57). Also, Joseph spoke Egyptian and was dressed in the Egyptian manner.

So we see how easily the "proofs" in the first Answer fall apart.

Now back to the Question:

DNA testing of Jewish communities worldwide has shown that they are all interrelated and of Middle Eastern genetics, comparable to the Sephardim today (not African or Egyptian).

In 2000, the analysis of a report by Nicholas Wade "provided genetic witness that Jewish communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries. The results accord with Jewish history and tradition." Meaning, unsurprisingly, that the Jews are who they say they are, present and past.
The only exception to this is the Ethiopian Black Jews, who show only a trace of DNA connection to other Jewish communities. Western ethnologists today hold the view that the Jews of Gondar (Ethiopia) either emerged from a Judaizing strain among Ethiopian Christians, or were converted by Yemeni Jews who crossed the Red Sea. A study by Professors Lucotte and Smets has shown that the genetic father of Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews) was close to the Ethiopian non-Jewish populations. This is consistent with the theory that Beta Israel are descendants of ancient inhabitants of Ethiopia, not the Middle East. Hammer et al. in 2000, and the team of Shen in 2004, arrive at similar conclusions, namely that the DNA of the Ethiopian Jews probably indicates a conversion of local populations.
It has been estimated that this happened some 2,000 years ago.
And in America:
The beliefs and practices of Black Hebrew groups vary considerably. The differences are so great that historian James Tinney has suggested the classification of the organizations into three quite distinct groups.
Some of these groups are actually Christians, or part-Christians in their beliefs and practices. They have names such as Church of the Living God, the Church of God and Saints of Christ, and the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ. Others profess beliefs closer to Judaism, such as the Commandment Keepers.
As Judaism sees it, the issue with their claims is that they can produce no generally-accepted evidence of actual Semitic ancestry. These groups created themselves spontaneously within recent history, from within the wider African-American population.
Any African-Americans who do choose to become Jewish through proper conversion are accepted into Judaism.

Answer 2

For an indication in the Hebrew Bible of the appearance of the ancient Hebrews, we note the terms "ruddy" (1 Samuel ch.16) and "suntanned" (Song of Songs), neither of which apply to Blacks. So we can only assume they looked like the Jews of today, which include a range of skin colors from olive to pale.

Just as today, Israelites came in differing skin-tones, heights, and body-types. Our tradition is that the twelve sons of Jacob (the 12 Tribes) were not completely similar to each other in appearance, though none of them was really dark-skinned (Rashi commentary on Genesis 12:11).
Abraham and Sarah came from southern Iraq and their wider family from northern Iraq. Since DNA tests have shown that Jews intermarried infrequently throughout history, Abraham and his Israelite descendants, including Moses, probably looked like Jews today.
DNA testing of Jewish communities worldwide has shown that they are all interrelated and of Middle Eastern genetics, not African or Egyptian.
In 2000, the analysis of a report by Nicholas Wade "provided genetic witness that Jewish communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries. The results accord with Jewish history and tradition."

Answer 3

Just as today, Jews (Israelites) came in differing skin-tones, heights, and body-types. Our tradition is that the twelve sons of Jacob (the 12 Tribes) were not completely similar to each other in appearance, though none of them was really dark-skinned (Rashi commentary on Genesis 12:11).
Abraham himself came from Western Asia, and since Jews have intermarried very little in the last 3800 years, the answer is that he probably looked like Jews today.
DNA testing of Jewish communities worldwide has shown that they are all interrelated and of Middle Eastern genetics, comparable to the Sephardim today (not African or Egyptian). Our own ancient sources state that the Hebrews were not Black.

Answer 4

The Jews, the descendants of the original Hebrews, have a wide variety of skin colors, ranging from white to olive (the most common) to black and with minorities in various other ethnic groups.

The phrasing of "True Hebrews" is commonly seen among those who advocate ideas supported by the Black Israelite Churches that the "True Hebrews" are Africans or similar groups that are not of Semitic origin. Of course, no such claim survives when scrutinized. The Black Israelite Churches believe that this is the case regardless of thecontrary evidence. They also believe this in spite of the fact that many of the peoples whom they consider to be Israelite Tribes are either wholly or partially mixed with non-Blacks, which should cause major theological problems since the Black Israelites' claim to be Israelites rests on the fact that they were moved by ships and sold in distant lands, which did not occur for either non-Blacks. Their claims also ignore the history of the Jewish people themselves and of those in their surroundings, plus DNA corroboration and general consensus. I personally find it rather saddening that rather than delighting in their own unique histories and drawing strength from the various empires and civilizations of Pre-Colonial Africa, many Blacks in their diaspora feel a need to invent histories that are clearly false, to vindicate their self-worth.

As concerns the first Community answer, there are numerous incorrect points. Even assuming that The Bible is an accurate marker of genealogy, Ham (חם) only means "brown" or "hot". It does not mean Black (which is Shachor שחור) or burnt (which is Saruf שרוף). More importantly, Ham had some children who were the parents of the Black Africans such as Kush (the father of the Nubians) and other children who were more Olive in skin-tone such as Phut (father of the Libyans) and Canaan (the father of the Canaanites). It is quite possible that Mizraim (father of the Egyptians and another son of Ham) was similarly olive-toned. This removes much of the rest of the proof. It is worth adding though that the brothers' non-recognition of Joseph came more likely from the fact that he was dressed in royal regalia (Gen 41:42), that his brothers did not look him in the eye since they were prostrate (42:6), and that Joseph spoke to his brothers through an interpreter (42:23).

Answer 5

There is no description in the Hebrew Bible of Ancient Hebrews. We can only assume they looked like the Jews of today, which include a range of skin colors from black to white and everything in between.

Answer 6

Just as today, Jews (Israelites; Hebrews) came in differing skin-tones, heights, and body-types. Our tradition is that the twelve sons of Jacob (the 12 Tribes) were not completely similar to each other in appearance, though none of them was really dark-skinned (Rashi commentary on Genesis 12:11).
Abraham himself came from Western Asia, and since Jews have intermarried very little in the last 3800 years, the answer is that he probably looked like Jews today.
DNA testing of Jewish communities worldwide has shown that they are all interrelated and of Middle Eastern genetics, comparable to the Sephardim today (not African or Egyptian). Our own ancient sources state that the Hebrews were not Black.

Answer 7

Just as today, Israelites came in differing skin-tones, heights, and body-types. Our tradition is that the twelve sons of Jacob (the 12 Tribes) were not completely similar to each other in appearance, though none of them was really dark-skinned (Rashi commentary on Genesis 12:11).
Abraham and Sarah came from southern Iraq and their wider family from northern Iraq. Since DNA tests have shown that Jews intermarried infrequently throughout history, Abraham and his Israelite descendants probably looked like Jews today.
Now consider a few points:
The Israelites did not "mix" (have sexual relations) with the Egyptians (Rashi commentary, Numbers ch.26).
DNA studies have shown that Africans are not related to Jews.
Nowhere does it state that Pharaoh was Black. Egypt has been ruled by non-Blacks too, such as the Hyksos.
Nowhere does it state that Moses was thought of as Pharaoh's physical progeny. Everyone knew that Pharaoh's daughter had adopted him.
Not all of Ham's descendants settled around the Horn of Africa. Concerning Canaan it states explicitly that some of them spread far afield (Genesis ch.10).
Joseph was not recognized because, for the first time, his brothers saw him with a full beard (Talmud, Ketubot 27b). Additionally, most Egyptians were olive skin-toned just as they are today. Even assuming that the Egyptians were Black, the presence of a non-Black in Egypt would not have been surprising since the land was at that time inundated with foreigners (Genesis 41:57). Also, Joseph spoke Egyptian and was dressed in the Egyptian manner.
So we see how easily the "proofs" in first Community Answer fall apart.

DNA testing of Jewish communities worldwide has shown that they are all interrelated and of Middle Eastern genetics, not African or Egyptian.
In 2000, the analysis of a report by Nicholas Wade "provided genetic witness that Jewish communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries. The results accord with Jewish history and tradition."

• Link: What race were the Israelites?
  

The only exception to this is the Ethiopian Jews, who show only a trace of DNA connection to other Jewish communities. Western ethnologists today hold the view that the Jews of Gondar (Ethiopia) either emerged from a Judaizing strain among Ethiopian Christians, or were converted by Yemeni Jews who crossed the Red Sea. A study by Professors Lucotte and Smets has shown that the genetic father of Beta Israel (Ethiopian Jews) was close to the Ethiopian non-Jewish populations. This is consistent with the theory that Beta Israel are descendants of ancient inhabitants of Ethiopia, not the Middle East. Hammer et al. in 2000, and the team of Shen in 2004, arrive at similar conclusions, namely that the DNA of the Ethiopian Jews probably indicates a conversion of local populations.It has been estimated that this happened some 2,000 years ago.

And in America:
The beliefs and practices of Black Hebrew groups vary considerably. The differences are so great that historian James Tinney has suggested the classification of the organizations into three quite distinct groups.
Some of these groups are actually Christians, or part-Christians in their beliefs and practices. They have names such as Church of the Living God, the Church of God and Saints of Christ, and the Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ. Others profess beliefs closer to Judaism, such as the Commandment Keepers.
As Judaism sees it, the issue with their claims is that they can produce no generally-accepted evidence of actual Semitic ancestry. These groups created themselves spontaneously within recent history, from within the wider African-American population.
Any African-Americans who do choose to become Jewish through proper conversion are accepted into Judaism.

See also the other Related link.

Link: Are the African-Americans from the lost Israelite tribes?

Answer 8

BLack