that Paul was mistaken for an egyptian, because he was so dark. (Acts21:38)
Wait, what?
Again, not to derail a thread (as I think this idea already derails it), but:
Allow me to ask,
You think the apostle Paul was "dark" (ie, a black man (btw this is not about colour, (Acts 17:26; Genesis 3:20) but historical accuracy)),
because the Roman guard asked him if he was "that Egyptian" (Acts 21:38)?
If so, that is a 'racist' mentality, and entirely inaccurate, not only historically, but contextually.
Egypt is home to many shades of 'brown', as most countries are, from light (such as 'white' (a shade of brown, less Melanin)) to dark (such as 'black' (a shade of brown, more Melanin)). Egyptians are generally classified under 'caucasian' (which has a range of tone, even in later periods, in the time of Muhammad, he was considered 'caucasian', and he was supposed to be Egyptian/Arab/etc mix, and even today Egyptians, generally a mixed populace from all the conquered times, Greece, Arabia, etc).
However, more than this, the Greeks had long ago, before the time of Paul, conquered Egypt, and their Egyptian kings (Ptolmaic dynasty, from the reigns of Ptolemy I Soter after Alexander III the Great of Macedon) and populace were heavily Greek. Greek is also classified under a 'caucasoid' (but again there is a range of tone).
Just read Daniel 2,7,8-12 to see that.
And to top that all off, if we simply read the context of the text of Acts 21:38, the previous verses told us why the Roman centurian, asked Paul if he was "that Egyptian":
Act 21:37 And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain,
May I speak unto thee? Who said,
Canst thou speak Greek?
Act 21:38 Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers?
Act 21:39 But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people.
Act 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
Act 22:25 And as they bound him with thongs, Paul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?
Paul was asked the question, not because of the skin tone, but because of the actions that surrounded Paul, and even that Paul could speak "Greek" (the language of Egypt at the time, just consider the Alexandrians; Acts 6:9). Notice that Paul was actually not from "Egypt", but was a "Jew", from "Tarsus" a "city of Cilicia", a Roman province far to the north, in the area today that is known as 'Turkey" (also 'caucasoid' in general). A "Jew" (as any human being) could be any range of skin tone, but again, notice the location Paul was from.
Act 21:27 And when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews which
were of Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the people, and laid hands on him,
The reference to "that Egyptian" dealt with a leader of rebellious persons towards Rome, as Barabbas (Mark 15:7), as was Theudas and so also Judas of Galilee (Acts 5:37). These are actually a fulfillment of Daniel 11:14, along with many others before and after them. The reason the Roman guard asked Paul if he was "that Egyptian", was not for the skin tone, which is nowhere mentioned in the text (and God forbid), but because of the uproar of the people that surrounded him.
Act 21:31 And as they went about to kill him, tidings
came unto the chief captain of the band, that all Jerusalem was in an uproar.
Act 21:33 Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and commanded him to be bound with two chains; and
demanded who he was, and what he had done.
I would desire that people stop lowering the plain reading of scripture to mere bigotry, to create this erroneous idea of 'identifying' more with a person of scripture through skin tone. It is a twisted view of the scripture and also of human-kind, of which there is only one "kind" of, for "kind" brings forth after "kind" according to the Law of "kinds" in Genesis.
