Albion noted that because the Israelites were in Egypt some might conclude that they were, therefore, "black" (we need to keep in mind that terms like "white" and "black" are largely modern constructs). This can get tricky, though I would agree that it is, at best, a supreme oversimplification. Because Egypt's long history as a civilization did have many Nubian influences. Nubia (roughly corresponding to modern Sudan) and Egypt have a very long and ancient history involving both conflict and cooperation. At certain points in ancient Egyptian history Nubians were the ruling class, and there were Nubian dynasties.
Whereas Egypt generally shares most with North Africa and the Western Levant, the Nile River allowed a more open connection between East North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. Hence the relationships with Nubia and also Ethiopia to Egypt's south.
It's tricky because there certainly would have been what we call black Egyptians (as noted above). Black here corresponding to peoples from the Sub-Sahara.
But it's also probably important to talk about ancient human migratory patterns. We typically think of the out-of-Africa migration as one event, but was actually a series of migrations (demonstrated by genetic studies). These ancient migrations out from Africa corresponded to climate changes. The Sahara over the last couple hundred thousand years has gone through wet and dry periods. We are currently in a dry period, but during wet periods the Sahara was fertile. We know these periods existed because humans used to inhabit the Sahara in larger numbers and recorded their existence through tool and painting discoveries--paintings of giraffe, elephant, etc. During these periods the Sahara was much like the rest of central Africa, filled with savanna grasslands with herds of elephant, buffalo, and the like. During these wet periods it was far easier for humans to migrate north and across the region across Sinai into Mesopotamia and beyond.
Egyptian civilization, or rather proto-Egyptian civilization--agrarian society centered around the Nile--likely was fostered by Saharan people who, during the last drying up of the Sahara, migrated to stable sources of water--the Nile. And gathered there, and like also during the drying out of Mesopotamia resulting in organized human communities around the Tigris and Euphrates, was borne what we call civilization.
So to that extent, Egypt largely was inhabited by waves of Saharan nomads seeking to survive, with the last drying up of the Sahara largely cutting North Africa off from the rest of the continent, except as already noted the Nile providing an exchange between Egypt in the north and Nubia in the south.
So have there been black Egyptians? Absolutely. Would the Israelites have been black? Probably not. But it's impossible to talk about roughly a million people, while a foreign people from the Levant in Egypt there were four hundred years of integration in Egyptian society. So let's expect that DNA studies would show that these people shared much in common with both local Egyptian and Nubian peoples.
So let's put it this way: Was Jesus African? No. Did Jesus have Sub-Saharan African ancestry? Yes, in the same way every last human being on this planet has African ancestry. Did Jesus also have more recent African ancestry (that is within two or three thousand years)? Probably.
So what does all this actually mean? Well nothing really. It's only interesting if you're a nerd like I am and find anthropology and human phylogeny interesting. Because when it comes to the Gospel the only thing that matters is that the Word became man, His name is Jesus, and He is our Lord, raised from the dead. And His promise of eternal life is for all people, regardless of race, tribe, or tongue.
-CryptoLutheran
