A Black African Samson? What were they thinking?

Thank you for your open minded thoughts. The ancient Hebrews were an Asiatic people. They had more in common genietically with Syrians, Turks, Armenians, Iranians (Persians), and Afghans. They were all caucasian, and like their latter day descendents would have tended to have olive complections.

In THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD, George Stevens cast Sidney Poiter as Simon of Cyrene. Here's a fascinating quote from www.gotquestions.org:

"Question: "Who was Simon of Cyrene?"

Answer: Simon of Cyrene is mentioned in three of the four Gospels as the man impelled by the Roman soldiers to carry Jesus’ cross out of Jerusalem. His place of origin has led many to wonder if he was of African descent (and therefore black), or if he was simply born there as were many others of Greek, Roman, and Jewish descent.

Cyrene was situated in modern-day Libya, on the northern coast of the African continent. Settled by the Greeks in 630 B.C. and later infused with a significant Jewish population, Cyrene was the capital of the Roman district of Cyrenaica at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. By then, Cyrene was home to a large number of Greek-speaking, or Hellenistic, Jews.

Many Jews from Cyrene had returned to their native Israel and were part of a community in Jerusalem called the Synagogue of the Freedmen comprising Jews from many other provinces including Alexandria (Egypt), Cilicia and Asia (Acts 6:9). Luke records men from Cyrene being among those converted at Pentecost (Acts 2:10). After the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7), believers from Cyrene were among the first to be scattered by the persecution in Jerusalem; arriving in Antioch, they preached to the Gentiles there (Acts 11:20). These believers were instrumental in the formation of the church at Antioch, where, for the first time, “the disciples were called Christians” (Acts 11:26).

Simon of Cyrene is mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke. Matthew only records his name and place of origin (27:32), but Mark and Luke say that he was “on his way in from the country” (Luke 23:26). Mark, uncharacteristically, provides the most information about Simon, adding that he was “the father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mark 15:21), men obviously well known to Mark’s readers. It is speculated that the Rufus mentioned here may be the same man Paul greets in his letter to Rome, whom he calls “chosen in the Lord” and whose mother “has been a mother to me, too” (Romans 16:13). Paul’s knowledge of Rufus’s family indicates that at some point they lived further east.

So does any of this indicate whether Simon was black? Ultimately, we don’t know for sure. There is always the possibility that Simon was an African who converted to Judaism, or that he was of mixed descent. However, considering that people of Jewish lineage lived throughout the Roman Empire, it is also possible that Simon of Cyrene was olive-skinned."

My apologies for the added P in Samson.

Although I am simply a layman, I am aware that not all Caucasions are light skinned. Although I generally feel that this poorly conceived retelling of stories from The Bible is likely to be forgotten in time, it give us no insight or understanding of the meaning of these stories. Introducing an interracial aspect to story of Samson & Delilah only confuses the essence of it.

Philistines were Gentiles, whose ancestors originally came from the islands off the Greek mainland. It is probable that they came to the Egypt's Nile Delta and Canaan from Crete. They were probalby descended from the ancient Minoan culture of Crete and the Mycenaean culture of the Greek mainland.

The contrast between Samson, as a Semite, and Delilah, as a Gentile, is more than sufficient for dramatic purposes.

If filmmakers these days are so all-fired up to cast black actors (which they SHOULD BE) let them make amends by producing more black cowboy movies. I forget the exact figure, but about a quarter of those Texas cowboys driving the cattle in the latter third of the 19th century were black.

Let them make THOSE movies and stop this nonsense where historical and, in this case, pseudo-historical films are concerned. Speaking of Vikings, can you imagine them casting Denzel Washington as Eric the Red?

It would never happen.

So I reiterate the OP's question.

What WERE they thinking?

The outrage is that this is presented on the History Channel and it implied to be history. The Bible is religious myth, with all the complexity of mythology. If it is to be seen in a historical context then it must be depicted with as much historical accuracy as can be brought to bear on it.

The image of a blue eyed, fair haired Jesus with northern European features has always been absurd.

Nope. There's evidence of Jews with blue eyes from legal documents drawn up in Egypt in Hellenistic times.

I don't blame you for being unaware of it, it's fairly arcane knowledge, but it's worth knowing.

Since Mary was a virgin conceived by God Jesus could have been any race or color but I would assume since the Jews were Gods chosen people that Jesus would resemble that culture in appearance and maybe blue eyes would distinguish him as unique to the typical Jewish look.

... End of line.

Kikabi, I swear that during Asian angel's swordplay I was expecting some Mortal Combat music to start playing at any moment.




Just the tip?
Just the tip.
Just the tip!

Would you make a film about a black Confucius?

The "outrage," at least from my point of view is that it's my history. As I said, there were black Jews then as there are now. But, Sampson was not one of them. I find offense in changing my history to fit a modern, politically correct, version of events.

At least some were fair-skinned (perhaps the majority) and some had blue eyes.

They never place an emphasis on race either since the concept of different "races" of people is more recent.

He was a Mediterranean type, possibly fair-skinned, and in all probability would blend right in with the current inhabitants of Israel.

Except for one thing. Genesis doesn't have the Garden of Eden placed in Africa. Regardless of what secular history says, these are stories (loosely) based on the Bible. According to the named rivers in chapter 2, it was in the Fertile Crescent somewhere, which is in the middle-east.

Why conflate science with ethnic mythology?

Would you cast black actors to play Izanagi and Izanami as well?