Skip to main content
Bible Q

Was Samson a black man, as depicted in the History Channel series called The Bible?

No, Samson wasn’t a black person (although he could have had a dark skin colour). Ethnically, he was a Jew (from the tribe of Dan [Judges 13:2]), so he would have looked more like the following picture than the actor — Nonso Anozie — who portrays him on the History Channel’s The Bible.

Jewish face


(Image from M. Fillon, ‘The Real Face Of Jesus‘ [23/01/15] on [accessed 06/08/15])

12 Replies to “Was Samson a black man, as depicted in the History Channel series called The Bible?”

  1. Praise you Almighty God Jesus, the Christ for this
    opportunity to speak truth to the children of men..

    This is going to be interesting.. Before I begin… I
    invite any Bible believing Christian in love to challenge
    anything I write. No offense will be taken.. If Jesus
    were a Caucasian – I would love him the same. In fact
    when I was a younger man and thought he was
    white – I loved him then….
    Praise the Lord.

    Not only was Samson black, but From
    Adam to Jesus the Bible is black with
    exception to the non-indigenous white
    Greeks and Romans. I can prove this
    if you are willing to look at the scriptures
    with an open mind and forget what history,
    tradition, folklore, theologians and the
    television tells us what the race of the people
    in the Bible were.

    The Bible not only substaniates that Cush ( Gen 10:6
    / Strong’s # 3568 ) the progenitor of Ethiopia,
    and the grandson to Noah’s youngest son Ham
    was black, but all 8 people on the ark.

    There were no people on the Earth besides the
    8 people who got off the ark.

    Noah was Cush’s grand father, therefore, he
    had to have been black as well. Think about
    this for a second. Cush was black, therefore
    all his brothers who had the same mother and
    father ( Ham ) were black as well. Remember,
    besides Noah’s wife, there were 3 other women
    on the ark who I will prove had to have been
    black as well.

    Cush other brother ( Gen 10:6 ) Mizraim
    was the father of the Egyptians.. Mizraim
    had the same mother and father as Cush, so
    did Phut who became the progenitor of the
    Lybians. And last but not least was the fourth
    son, Canaan born of Ham and his mother who
    was also on the Ark… Now if you accept how I
    am explaining the Bible, you must accept that
    the Philistines (Gen 10:13-14 ) are black b/c they
    are descendants of the Mizraimites who I already
    proved are black according to the Bible..

    Now explain to me how Ham could be black if
    Noah, and his wife weren’t black? People…
    think… Noah’s son Ham was the father of the
    African race.. Yeah, I will believe Noah was a
    white man the day George W. Bush could
    have a biological son with Laura Bush that
    could be mistaken for Flavor Flav or any of
    the Jackson 5 before plastic surgery.

    You can’t explain how two non-black people
    on the ark can have a biological son who became
    the progenitor of the African race….. Noah and
    all three of his son’s were black.. The white race
    came about by the curse of Canaan ( Lev 13:3-4,
    13, 43 )….

    It’s as simple as that…..

    Now that you know Noah and his three
    son’s were black you now know that
    Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were also
    black.. Joseph was mistaken ( Gen
    42:7 ) for an Egyptian by his brothers…

    So what do we have here? We have the
    black descendants of Shem (Joseph)
    way beyond Abraham – being mistaken
    for a descendant of Ham’s 2nd son
    ( Mizraim Egypt /
    Strong’s # H4714 ) Mizraim.

    Follow me.. 2 of Noah’s sons descendants
    of Shem ( Joseph / Gen 42:7 ) and Ham
    are mistaken for the same race. And
    descendants of Japheth in the Apocrypha
    ( 1 Maccabees 12:21 ) are called brethren
    to the Israelites. And I am expected by
    “society” to think that the entire (95%)
    of the Bible is not black ? I can’t fooled
    anymore with the man’s “his-story”..

    Moses, Apostle Paul & all the sons of
    Israel were mistaken for ( Gen 50:11
    / Exo 2:19 / Acts 21:38 ) Egyptians
    as well…

    The Bible says Jesus had wooly hair,
    [ Daniel 7:9 KJV ] feet in color to brass
    burnt in an oven [ Rev 1:13-15 ] , and
    compared his complexion to a birthstone
    [ Rev 4:3 ] which comes in many colors
    including one the tone of Chris Rock..

    Job said he was black as well as
    Solomon.. ( Job 30:30 / SOS 1:5-6 )
    God said Judah was black
    [ Jeremiah 14:2 KJV.. Lam 4:8 ], and
    that Jacob would never become white..
    …Isaiah 29:22..

    If we are willing to shut the voices of
    history ( Jeremiah 16:19 ), tradition,
    and the television out of our minds,
    we can see that everyone in the
    Bible except the Greeks and Romans
    were black… And even the ancient
    sons of Japheth were the first
    Europeans, so whites are not even
    native to Europe…

    I almost forgot about the people of Sodom
    ( Gen 10:19 ) being black, as well the
    Phonecians ( Gen 10:19 / Sidon …..
    Strongs # H6721 ) who we get most of our
    English alphabet from…

    John 8:32

  2. The nerve of you to ask a question which
    on face value makes it appear that you are
    looking for the truth. I as a black man respect
    whites who are open with their inner klan than
    the closet racist who pretend to be Christian..

  3. Wrong answer.for one your are only a “Jew” if you come from the tribe of Judah which Samson did not.Your pic is completely inaccurate.Where is the 7 Locks(dread Locks) he had.The history channel had no way around that.They had to show the real Samson.Yes he was black.Show me one caucassan that have hair that weill NATUALLY lock up when unkept.Thats was what the nazerines did.sorry but you are wrong.

    • As the discussion is about ethnicity, the picture is clearly intended to show ethnicity, not Samson himself. Also, “Jews” are not limited to the tribe of Judah (see Today most Jews are derived from the tribes in the southern kingdom (centred around Judah) because they were the ones to return, but the tribe of Dan came from the Jewish ethnic background, and so reconstructions of Jewish faces apply to them too.

      • Sorry, I see no evidence that those are “original Jews”. The Bible and secular history both show that the Jews originated from Mesopotamia with Abraham, and were established in the land of Israel long before any traditions of Ethiopian involvement.

        I’ve already cited Wikipedia. I’ll now add Britannica to the mix: “an Ethiopian of Jewish faith”; “Their ancestors … were probably local Agew peoples in Ethiopia who were converted by Jews living in southern Arabia in the centuries before and after the start of the Christian Era.”

        • Falasha Jews were the original Orthodox Jews that lived in Ethiopia in ancient times, they were a forgotten tribes and were not discovered by the masses until in the 1930-40 era when they were looking to define their religion, but the Falasha Jews were too strict with there customs that they decided to send them back to African because they could not uphold the strict guidelines of the Falasha Jews. The world found out that they were bringing Falashas from Africa to Israel and was mad with the then american president so he decided to stop also. Check Beth Israelite. Some of these people are using words and don’t know their true meaning.Please don’t use the word ethnic, if you do not know what it means. Lesson number 1, ethnic means “heathen”. Please stop using that word. This word was banned in ancient time because of it’s meaning and is slowly rearing it’s ugly head again,

          • Again, I have cited both Wikipedia and Britannica while you give no sources for your beliefs. As far as I can see, they don’t seem to match very well even the traditions of the Falasha. Samson was before the line of the Falasha was alleged to have started, and he and all the Jewish nation stayed in Israel at least until the captivity. Those who returned from exile and set up the Jewish kingdom were descended from that same race, and were still around in the Roman times that this reconstruction was for. Therefore, they are a more accurate representation of what Samson might have looked like than a separate race with traditions linking it back to the Jewish race.

            As far as “ethnic” goes, you are correct that “heathen” is one of its meanings. I was not aware of that. However, it is not the only one of its meanings, and it is clearly not the meaning either Luke or I are using. I would say nowadays in common usage it means something similar to “race”. From Merriam-Webster: “of or relating to large groups of people classed
            according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or
            cultural origin or background”. There is nothing ugly about that, and there is no harm in using that definition.

          • First you should have used the word genealogy, and Paul clearly states to do away with genealogy. Second the word “ethnic” was used derogatorily back in the ancient days, that’s why I said it is not to be used. Heathen was the primary meaning of the word. The Falasha was always there. The world did not know that they existed until they found them by mistake and found out that they were using some of the same customs but stricter and they were on the same calender as the rest of the other Jewish sect. They were surprise to know that and intrigued at the same time. I ask you to check “Beta Israel”.I have my sources and they prove to be right.Falasha are from the same bloodline as King Solomon.

          • As far “ethnic” goes, we aren’t in the ancient days, we didn’t use the world in a derogatory manner, and heathen is not the primary meaning of the word today. This discussion has nothing to do with the answer, either.

            As far as the question goes, I stand by my original answer: even if the falasha were related to King Solomon from Judah (which seems fairly questionable), it still wouldn’t advance the claim that Samson from the tribe of Dan many years before Solomon’s time would be more like the Falasha than like Jewish descendants in Israel in the time of Christ. Your sources might be more credible if you were actually willing to cite them, but if you consult Wikipedia on “Beta Israel”, you will find that it carefully documents a number of theories, including the one I cited from Britannica that they share religion and culture because of later teachings, but do not share race.

            I have no idea where you think “genealogy” fits into my answer.

            As I cannot see any possible benefit in continuing this discussion I do not intend to reply to any further comments.

          • King Solomon was the son of King David, and King David was from the tribe of Judah. Samson mother was from the Judahite lineage and his father was from Zorah, a Danite family. Zorah is a tribal portion of both Judah and Dan. So that is where the correlation between the Falasha and Samson comes about. Falasha was in Ethiopia from the earliest time recorded was 740bc, so if they were there first and in his time and was practicing Judaism. The Falasha are descendant of Jews who accompanied Menelik, the son of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba from Jerusalem to Ethiopia. Cushite are Ethiopians.

  4. Remember that part in the article where it say’s that “race shouldn’t matter?” Well, obviously it matters a great deal judging by these comments.