Talk:Race and appearance of Jesus/Archive 1

Argue
I imagine an argument. I am through with it now, so I can watch everyone squabble. ''' Molotov   (talk) ''' 02:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Jesus infobox
I'd like to hear people's opinions on whether or not to keep this article in the "Topics related to Jesus" infobox that appears on numerous Jesus-related pages, including Jesus itself. I'm not too sure of that myself, especially considering that this article was created today and has not had a chance to go through the weeks and months of community editing that all the other Jesus articles have to ensure that it fully and accurately represents all significant views (though I have few specific problems with the current article content, aside from organizational issues). PageN Additionally, an article should not be listed in the "Topics related to Jesus" box if it fits under another item already listed there, so as to avoid redundancy&mdash;instead, the article should be linked to several times in its "host" section. Currently, the main contender I can see for an alternative page to link to is Images of Jesus (which we may want to consider moving to Appearance of Jesus, "images" is a bit vague and inconsistent with other article names like "Names and Titles of Jesus", and seems more suited to a Category name than an Article name.. though it's a minor issue, I suppose), which we should have link to this article prominently because of the close relationships between the two. We may even want to consider the possibility of merging this article into that one since they're both very short right now, though I think both have a fair amount of potential.

So, that's the question: is it necessary to have this article in the infobox, and how should this article relate to Images of Jesus? -Silence 23:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I'd like to propose that this article be moved to Race of Jesus. The current title is needlessly complex and makes it seem even more like a subdivision of Images of Jesus, when your intent seems to be to explore Jesus' racial background in general, not just how his race has been portrayed. That's what would make for the better article, anyway, since it would incorporate both sides of the matter. Right? -Silence 00:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

''' 01:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC) ''' 01:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I really hate Wikipedia. Your messages are really anal retentive ''' Molotov   (talk)  [[Image:California state flag.png|25px]]
 * Until I can see WHAT is so bad about my writing - I will DELETE the tag. ''' Molotov   (talk)  [[Image:California state flag.png|25px]]

Dispute resolved. ''' Molotov   (talk) ''' 04:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

More Historic and Legend depictions
--Connection 09:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Veil of Veronica.
 * Image of Edessa.
 * Eusebius of Caesarea, in Historia Ecclesiastica, (other than the Image of Edessa) reproduces a letter from a Roman official describing Jesus.
 * Josephus, Jewish historian.


 * Why have you added this here? Paul B 10:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

editorial descriptors
I took a few of the more loaded editorial descriptors out, while retaining the essential information. If we are going to say that many consider it blasphemy, we can also use the somewhat more neutral "some". --Fire Star 05:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

''' 05:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I think the tag can be taken of so this can be a featured article candidate!''' Molotov   (talk)  [[Image:California state flag.png|25px]]

African connection and other comments
I think that Jesus has become the race of the worshippers in most cases. God is made in (local) man's image rather than the other way round. This is partly a response to European evangelism. One of the local churches here has some interesting paintings from different parts of the world where he is painted as an Indian (i.e. from India), a Mongolian, an Arab, a black African, and a native of South America. The main aim is to point out "the word lived among us", and that he was one of us, so that means making Jesus look like the congregation. Also, any artist will tend to use locals as models anyway.

I think the African section should point out the story of his family fleeing to Egypt, where there was a substantial Jewish community. This doesn't make him a black African necessarily, but it does suggest connections to a North African country.

IMO, his race is pretty obvious. He would just look like most Levantines now. Dark hair, brown eyes, bronzed skin. --MacRusgail 10:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

''' 16:29, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Debates on His race will always be around. ''' Molotov   (talk)  [[Image:California state flag.png|25px]]


 * I like the reproduced computer image on this article (from PBS or something). I'll bet he did look something like that.  KHM03 20:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I can tell you what race he was right now: human. Agent js03 05:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

During the time of Jesus there were only two European Cultures present. It was the Greeks and the Romans of which he was neither. Remove them from the equation and it's easy to determine that Jesus wasn't European in either appearance or fact. What do people think that skin like bronze and hair like sheeps wool look like? Tom 09/27/06
 * Culture doesn't determining how you look. There were many other groups besides Greeks and Romans present, they just weren't in power. Peyna 14:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality box
Do we still need the dispute box on the article? KHM03 20:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

''' 20:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No, not in my opinion...but I know another complaint will arise about I did not do. Thanks for everything KHMO3 - you are a good friend. ''' Molotov   (talk)  [[Image:California state flag.png|25px]]

NOR
I am concerned that this is all original research. Can the authors provide verifiable citations for studies on the racial or ethnic identification of Jesus? That would go far to improving the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like a source for the first sentence, to start with: Throughout the history of Christianity the racial background of Jesus has been contested. I was not aware of any real controversy here- pretty much any group that cares about Jesus regards him as Jewish, right?  If, however, this article is going to be about the idea of different ethnic groups potraying Jesus as a member of their own group, that's another topic altogether, and evidence of scholarly dispute over his race is not neccessary.  Friday (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The ethnicity of Jesus has historically been considered Jewish by the overwhelming majority of Muslims, Jews and Christians. The article has also mentioned at various times (I've edited it once or twice and it was reverted at least once) that the African hypothesis is a recent "revolution" or recent concept, which seems contradictory to the "throughout history" statement. The first sentence can be removed, IMO. --Fire Star 19:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Black Madonna? Huh?
I'm removing the stuff about the "Black Madonnas" from the "African" section, because that's not where it should go... I'll remove the pic of the Czestochowa/Jasna Gora Madonna, and stick the link to "black madonna" elsewhere, making mention of the confusion it caused. --Edward Wakelin 22:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

''' 00:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Added picture of an African Jesus instead - even I agree with this one because the Madonna portrait focused on the Virgin Mary rather than the infant baby Jesus. ''' Molotov   (talk)  [[Image:California state flag.png|25px]]


 * Apropos of nothing, what would be cool would be a series of "historically accurate" "re-imaginings" of famous paintings and sculptures... Ever notice how Michelangelo's "David" has a foreskin? Heh. It's only natural that different groups are going to view religious figures in different ways... My mother, the liberal Anglican, would undoubtedly say something about how it helps them connect with God, or something like that. Portrayals of religious figures aren't necessarily "calling dibs" on those figures. --Edward Wakelin 01:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC) PS: Why is there a "neutrality" tag? The article seems pretty neutral to me. The only problem I can see is that it's more about the racial portrayals of Jesus, than the actual question of Jesus' race, which might not actually be that important theologically, given that Christianity is a universal religion.

--Take it off

Just to clarify, that last line wasn't me.--Edward Wakelin 21:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Well one thing is clear
This article has sparked off way more than I expected. Yay for me!!!  V  /  M  01:18, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's partially because it was listed on Articles for deletion/Race of Jesus.--Kewp (t) 05:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

huh?
this article appears totally US-centric, using racial cliches that only make sense in the context of contemporary debate in the USA (black, white, hispanic, wth?); Afaics, it is completely undisputed that Jesus was an ethnic Aramaean. Whether Arameans are considered "black" or "white" in the USA is a matter of US sociology, exclusively. This seems to be another 'Afrocentrist' red herring. I mean, if we assume for argument's sake that Jesus had the "Middle Eastern" features shown in the portrait, which seems perfectly reasonable, the discussion which race such features are attributed to is completely unrelated to Jesus in particular, and just another example of the difficulty of delineating the concept of race. People who believe that Jesus had 50% 'divine' DNA (or maybe he was a clone of Mary, with only his Y chromosome 'divine'? Or maybe he was haploid, with magical pixie dust where other people have their second chromosome copy?) will argue that Jesus was only 50% Aramean, and 50% of a divine race anyway, which makes his classification pointless anyway, Jesus being a one-man race by himself so to speak. 130.60.142.65 12:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Ifaics the article covers a number of different beliefs that have been asserted (see refs section) to Jesus specifically. Whereas it might appear to be common sense that the most recent study is most likely right - resulting in the "Middle Eastern" features section, there have been claims for each and every section, I have seen no proof per se that the "Jesus was black" articles and books are proven wrong. From what I can gather the problem you see is not the fact that many such claims and attitudes exist to "attribute the race of Jesus" but that the article is not about correctly attributing the race of Jesus itself and covers any beliefs in Jesus' race that have been documented. As yet I have seen no documented belief that Jesus was part magical pixie dust, but if you'd like to point me to a good source... Alf melmac 13:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is getting stranger and stranger. Jesus was not an "Aramean," he spoke Arameic. I know of no statement in the NT or Apocrypha that claim that Jesus was an Aramean. But I do think the anonymous reader above is right that some people are using modern (or US) racial categories to talk about someone who did not live in the US and who lived 2,000 years ago. I have already raise NOR concerns about this article. Let's remember: '''It does not matter what any of us contributors believe. It does not matter how well any of us can argue. We are here to provide an account of what other people have said and done, based on verifiable sources.''' We must also follow NPOV. For example, "Author x has claimed that Jesus was beyond a doubt an Aramean. Author y, however, has argued that ..." Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * sure, but the point is that two unrelated issues are being unduly conflated:

I am not saying asking these questions shouldn't be asked. Let us just put them in proper perspective. The question whether Egyptians, Berbers or Semites are or were "blacks" is a question of US Afrocentrism, pure and simple. The question of the ethnicity of Jesus otoh is one of the larger issue of the historicity of Jesus. 83.79.180.249 19:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (a): what was the ethnicity/ancestry of Jesus. Arameans by definition would be the speakers of Aramaic, so I don't see the problem. This is a legitimate (although, except for the haploid business, straightforward) question that can be treated in an npov way
 * (b) what "race", in contemporary USian terms, are Arameans, Berbers, Semites, Middle Easterners etc. This is also a legitimate question to be addressed on race or US sociology articles or whatever, only it has bugger all to do with Jesus.
 * A common ambiguity that a lot of people (and articles) have is that they confuse language families with ethnic families. Blacks in North America, Australia and Britain speak English, but their ancestors 400 years ago certainly did not. Languages that different groups speak can change much more quickly than their genetics. Many think Hebrew evolved into Aramaic over the centuries, there weren't two different ethnicities, "Hebrew" and "Aramaic". They both belong to same West Semitic language family, from the same part of the world and only separated by time, so it won't follow that a Hebrew speaker and an Aramaic speaker will necessarily look different. --Fire Star 04:05, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What is the topic of this article?
To me, it seems like this article needs to decide what it's about. Is it about the phenomenon of artistic depictions of Jesus being of varying skin tone and features? Is it about scholarly dispute over the ethnic background of Jesus? To me, these are fairly seperate topics. As pointed out earlier, I think a lot of sourcing is needed to deal with NOR concerns. We should also keep in mind that "race" is far more of a social/cultural idea than a biological one. Also, talking about the "race" of a painting is very meaningless- for artwork, we can talk about skin tone and cosmetic features, but not "race". Also, heavy use of Afrocentric sources is appropriate for an article on Afrocentrism, but probably not for most other articles. We should reference mainstream scholarship certainly, and possibly discuss non-mainstream views if they're sufficiently notable. Friday (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely with everything except the last two sentences. I agree with the last two sentences too, but if it came down to arbitration I do not think the ArbCom would allow an editor to delete or reject sources because they are "Afrocentric."  In order to preserve NPOV we need to allow for a wide range of sources.  I do, however, believe that sources should be used carefully, and as our NOR policy instructs, when sources are controversial, the article must explain what the controversy over the sources are (e.g. x has accused y's book of ppor scholarship on these grounds:a, b, and c") Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Article should split

 * I agree. This article should split. If no one of the original authors would do it (or provides justification for not to) I will do.--Connection 08:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It already was done, a long time ago. See the discussion in "changes" below and look at the edit history to see what the above writers were referring to. If you are proposing creating two separate articles, I think that would be a serious mistake. Physically separating the articles would be pointless, and would occlude the way the information in the first section impacts on the second section. It was the debates about the actual race of Jesus that affected the way artists portrayed him in the 19th and 20th centuries - look at Hunt's booklet on the Finding of the Saviour for example. Likewise it was the medieval descriptions of the (alleged) actual Jesus that affected the artists of the Renaissance and post Tridentine periods. It is also important to distinguish between portrayals that unselfconsciously adopt local norms and those that are intended to make a specific point about race. Paul B 09:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

In agreement with the above, this debate should also be mentioned in the article
These links are from the Racism article, on the current biological science debate over the validity of the label "race" itself:


 * From Nova Online: George W. Gill argues here for the biological concept of "race" and, in a matching article, C. Loring Brace argues against the existence of "race" as a biological entity.


 * From California Newsreel: Race: The Power of an Illusion, an in-depth website (companion to a California Newsreel film), presenting the argument that while race is a biological fiction, racism permeates the structure of society.

These concepts imply that the entire argument in the article is only half of the picture. There are many who consider the concept of race to be [cultural or political, rather than one of genetic cosmetology.

Also, the Old Testament clearly states that the Israelites taken out of Egypt by Moses were a "mixed multitude" in the Book of Numbers 11:4. This reflects that the ancient Near East had many streams of immigration in historical periods, from Egyptian troops and officials, Indo-European Philistines from the Aegean, Hittites and Luwians from Anatolia to Semitic Amorites from ancient Syria and Arabs from the Hejaz. Who knows who passed through in prehistoric times? We have to be careful not to imply that there is a "pure" ethnic strain that can be identified and and debated as it is demonstrably wishful thinking at best and political POV at worst in the light of recent scholarship. We can only report that attested groups believe such and such a thing, and then supply the attestation. --Fire Star 20:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Should be discussed V  /  M  00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What should be? The passage in Numbers says nothing about race at all, nor does the context in any way imply that it has any such meaning or relates to "streams of immigration". Some versions translate it as "rabble" . The notion that the ME was a meeting point of peoples is already discussed. Paul B 07:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * To my mind, as mentioned above, we have two main areas the article can be reporting about: 1. different portrayals of Jesus and 2. reporting the debate over how Jesus may have looked. The first is mostly art history, the second an exercise in speculative ethnology. --Fire Star 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tricky, eh? both fields are good. I went through the links and added them as refs, noting them in the edit summary, as the guidance for footnotes led me to believe that the numbering system didn't apply, did I miss something? I'm happy to go over again to do the footnote stuff again if I'm pointed to the right guide. Alf melmac 20:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

changes
I have changed the opening section to emphasise that the description in Revelations is of JC's heavenly body, not of his earthly body.

I have deleted the references to Western images being seen around the world during the "middle ages". This is utter nonsense. The spread of European images occurred well after the middle ages, during the Early Modern period. There were independent Christian communities in Ethiopia, India and elsewhere in the middle ages, but they did not use European images. They had their own traditions.

Most European painters depict JC as brown haired, not as blond or (brown blondish). These vary from deep-brown to light-brown (see the images on the Jesus page, for example). Some northern European artists like Durer do use reddish-blond hair, but this is very much a minority portrayal. Most are simply portraying him in a way that corresponds to norms in their own population.

I have changed "white" to "Western European" at one point, since "white" itself is far too ambiguous. Whether middle easterners, today or then, are/were "white" is a matter of opinion to which there can be no definitive answer. Paul B 15:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As per discussion above I have divided the artistic depictions from the actual arguments about what he looked like. I have also divided the latter into two main sections - theological and secular-anthropological debates (though not wuith those names). There is still some blurring of the distinction between discussion of art and discussion of the "truth", but that was kept to maintain the flow and logic of statements being made. There might be more discussion of the theological problems of defining JC as of Davidian lineage (and what that might mean for discussion of his "race"). Likwise the very concept of clear and distinct races might be more thoroughly interrogated without losing sight of real differences between depictions and what they meant to people at various moments in history. Paul B 15:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Great work, obrigado senhor! Molotov (talk) [[Image:California_state_flag.png|25px]] 16:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Question/Nazi
Paul, Christ is gazing at Jewish converts to Christianity (not Chr. converts to Judaism ), right? By the way thanks for "uncovering" Tanner...I'd never heard of him before, in any context. All the best, Dpr 02:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The Nazi pic is a close up of the cartoon illustrating an article called "Sturm uber Juda" (Storm over Judah) in Der Stürmer. You can see the whole article on the Der Stürmer page. It's a defense of the Nuremberg laws which, among other discriminatory restrictions, barred Jews from professional positions in Nazi Germany. It's arguing against opponents of the laws and in favour of the Nazis' racial definition of "Jew". It claims that even Jews who converted to Christianity are still really Jews because Jewishness is racial not religious. This is justified with a lot of ranting about innate tendencies, conspiracies and Jewish plots etc etc. The people in the picture are Christian converts from Judaism, one a priest and the other a lawyer. They are presumably supposed to be conspiring in some way to undermine German culture from within. Jesus looks on disapprovingly, implying that Jesus himself will not accept Jews as legitimate Christians! My info on Tanner comes from a book I have called The Negro in Art (1966). Unfortunately the reproductions in it are too poor in quality to scan. Paul B 08:28, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Either way, Tanner was a great find, theologically and artistically.
 * Regarding Judaism: this raises--completely off-topic with regard to the race of Christ--the issue of "Messianic Jews" or "Jews for Jesus"...many (most?) of who are "fully" Christian adherents, yet retain (by internal choice or external imposition, or both) the designation of Jewishness. Intriguing. --Dpr 16:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Divine substance
I've changed the last line of the opening back to the earlier version for the following reasons. The reference to 'divine substance' derives from the formulation of Trinitarian doctrine, which states that God and Jesus are of one substance. In other words, the process of incarnation involves the "making flesh" of divine "substance". What exactly this might involve is anybody's guess, but I think it is more precise than simply saying "incarnation of God". It clarifies - or at leasts makes as clear as possible! - the problematic aspect of how physical characteristics might be "inherited" when Jesus is supposed to be "of one substance" with God the Father. Paul B 12:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

addendum. The formulation in the Athanasian creed is as follows:


 * For the right Faith is that we believe and confess : that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds : and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world.

Paul B 12:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin
What about the Shroud of Turin? It influenced the portrayal of Jesus as well?


 * There's really very little evidence for that. Shroud "fans" who argue for its authenticity like to claim that it influenced early images, or even that the medieval descriptions derive from it. Those who argue that it's a fake would say that the opposite is the case - that it reproduces pre-existing conventions. Don't forget that the shroud was a relatively obscure image until the negative photographs were made about a century ago. There were no reproductions of it. You'd have to go to Turin to see it, and the image is very faint. Most artists who painted pictures of Jesus had never seen the shroud or any reproduction of its image. Paul B 14:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The shrouds history can be traced back to Edessa. Its influence upon medieval paintings and versimilitudes of Jesus is obvious when you compare earlier Greek style representations which ceased shortly after the shroud arrived in the west from Constantinople. This is all covered in Holger Kersten's/Elmars book on the shroud (1992). Read it and then please comment some more. The Shroud has faded over time, so yes now it is very faint. You don't need a negative of the image to see a face, it just looks cooler in negative. Anyway, all the shroud tells you is the shape of the face, not the ethinicity. Alot of people had possesion of the shroud through the ages, so that would account for the similarities in medieval images of Christ. Of course its impossible to say how many artists had seen the shroud (one way or the other) as no poll has been left to us. However, one might suggest artists may well have seen paintings of the shroud, and copied them. When the shroud was first brought to Europe, its authenticity was widely accepted, and the market for such christian artifacts made them well known.86.4.59.203 01:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)BOB

Historical Evidence Regarding Roman-Era Jews
Maybe I missed it, but shouldn't this article have a discussion of the "racial" status of the Jews living in the middle east under Roman rule? There must be historical portraits and accounts that would suggest whether modern readers would ascribe any recognizable "race" to the Jews of that time. TheronJ 15:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There are portraits, but they follow the conventions of Hellenistic art. Most jewish leaders were not depicted in images. We do have the reconstruction of the head. There was much discussion of the race of ancient Israelites in the 19th century. Paul B 19:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew/Israeli
Jesus was from Israel, and his mother was from Israel, so wouldn't he be the same race as everyone else from Israel?


 * Only if everyone in Israel was the same race, and if he was not, as belivers claim, half made from divine "substance". Paul B 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no "Israel" two thousand years ago, kid. BleedingStinkingSloppyVagina 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Was there not? What an amazing insight. I guess there was no America either, so where did the injuns live? And I suppose there was no "Egypt" either before the Greeks called it that. Israel is one of several historical names for the area. I suggest you visit an STD clinic. It seems as though you might have a problem. Paul B 00:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

European/Middle Eastern: Caucasian
The description of Jesus in the "European" section doesn't conflict with looking "Middle Eastern". Even in the picture where he is supposed to look "European" he looks "Middle Eastern", and both are "Caucasians" so it should rather be "Negroid" versus "Caucasoid" if this article should make any sense. --83.72.194.208 13:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Yes but middle eastern caucasian and euro caucasians are very differnet no?

Doesn't matter, as the picture where he's supposed to look "European" is from Greece, and Greeks and Levantines largely overlap.

merge from Black Christ
I feel that it would be better to keep all the information about the race of Jesus here instead of splitting it out into a separate article. Amalas  =^_^=  14:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Some references to other cultures possible?
"Additionally, in some cultures nonwhite depictions of Jesus are actually criticized or dismissed outright, with some considering it blasphemous to portray of Jesus as being of another ethnicity." I would love to learn more about some cultures (especially some non-white cultures) that perceive a non-white Jesus as a form of blasphemy. I do not wish to argue the point in the article or in this dicussion, but to merely learn more about this. Why do they perceive it as blasphemous and how do they reason it theologically. --Zaphnathpaaneah 01:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The passage refers in part to people who simply consider departures from traditional images to be a form of "heretical" deviation from tradition, and are suspicious of revisionist imagery, associating it with "outsider" sub-Cultures. In part it refers to to explicitly racist groups - notably neo-Nazis and Christian Identity. There were also similar ideas in British Israelism and in Afrikaans South Africa. I've moved your comment about first century images to Talk, partly because it's arguable whether it should go in the historical or the artistic section. Partly, because I don't know what images you are referring to. Most early Roman paintings show Jesus as clean-shaven with shortish hair. It's normal for curly hair to be depicted in Roman art of the Antonine period, it's not specific to portrayals of Africans and Jews. Also, since Jesus was an Aramaic speaker, he obvious would be "non-Aryan, non-Indo-European". That doesn't tell us what he looked like, unless we are only using the word Aryan in the Nazi sense of the term. Some examples of early Jesus pics can be seen at these websites.,, www.thisischurch.com/sermon/PicturesOfJesus.pdf. Paul B 14:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Ironically, Roman portrayals of Jesus do not depict him as later Italian and European representations. Within the catacombs of Italy, where Christians of the 1st - 3rd centuries are buried, the oldest physical interpretations of Jesus show him with short curly hair, similar to that of Africans and Jews of this time. This portrayal would denote a non-Aryan, non-Indo European Jesus."

Brass
As anyone aquiantanted with Jacobean English should know, the term "bronze" does not exist at this time in English usage (check the OED). All references to copper alloys in the KJV use "brass", even when obviously referring to what we would now call "bronze age" weaponry. In fact what we now call brass (copper and zinc) was almost unknown in the ancient world. Though it began to be made by the Romans, it was bronze that was by far the best known and most used copper alloy. The Greek world "chalkos" just means "copper" and was used for any copper based metal. In practice copper was almost always alloyed.

The other changes are simply argumentative. In this passage the arguments are simply listed and then the responses added. All these assertions about the racial implications of wool-like hair and bronzed feet are palpably absurd, but making aggressive and argumentative additions designed to ridicule these claims just invites replies. Note that the term "black" here is being used with its US meaning, which includes brownish skinned people of mixed race. We should simply list what is said and let the sheer silliness of the argument answer itself. That goes for the "white head" argument too, of course. Paul B 10:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we need an indication of not just what some people believe, but how preveant each belief is. Some of the views here are clearly very minor (in terms of the number of people who believe them) yet this is not really made clear. DJ Clayworth 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where these arguments originated, probably in Afrocentrist literature, but they can be found all over the internet. As far as I know the "whiteness" argument simply came about as a counterblast to the "wooly hair = black" argument. I should imagine that it's impossible to determine how widely held thise views are. But the the argument that Jesus was black seems to have some purchase in America, though it's often difficult to know how the word "black" is being used. Paul B 16:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA
It seems that this article did not go through the GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2 in that it has insufficient citations of sources. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed and submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we say it is because of prevailing racists attitudes...
that Jesus depicted as a black man still causes an uproar? I think you are whitewashing the situation. Jesus was very, very likely not a white man, yet no one seems to blink when he is depicted as such. Same with the Egyptians, Hannibal, St. Maurice and any number of historical figures who have been appropriated as and by white people. So I aask you if it is not because of prevailing racist attitudes, wherein lies the source of the uproar?

D.R.


 * I don't think it's reasonable to say that Jesus was "very very likely not a white man". There is no clear definition of "white man", but the people of the middle east do fit the general category of "caucasoid". We also have very ancient depictions of middle easterners of the levant/palestine area from the Egyptians, who clearly portray them as pale skinned in comparison to themselves. See the illustrations of the Book of Gates. King Tut's cane is a good illustration of an Egyptian image depicting Semitic enemies as pale-faced and Nubian enemies as black-faced. See here


 * Hannibal was a Carthaginian. The Carthaginians were Phoenicians (From Lebanon originally), who would have looked like other Semitic peoples. St Maurice is very often depicted as dark-skinned. Egyptians were probably a very mixed population including both dark and lighter skinned peoples, but usually portrayed themselves as brown.


 * Most religious images portray saints in a manner derived from norms in the population that is making the image. It's not necessarily "racism" that produces such images, just a tendency to portray biblical figures looking like the people that the artist knows. Paul B 14:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hang on, why is brown nearer to white than black (or darker brown). obviously its highly unlikely that Jesus was typically Nigerian in appearance, but nor was he Norwegian, yet there have been actors like Max Von Sydow (Danish or Swedish i think) that have portrayed him without face colour added, so why is the image of a black guy as Jesus less accurate? Terms like caucasian and negroid have are problematic (i would argue) due to the context in which they were first used (white people busy measuring the skulls of colonial peoples to check out how "aryan" or "caucasoid" they were) and caucasian/caucasoid seems a very vague term designed to mean everyone except the Chinese and Africans, depending on the judgement of the caucasian checking whether jews in the ist century AD or Indian and Pakistanis nowadays are suitable or not.  (In the 19th century there were theories about Semetic people being inherently genetically and culturally different - often in a pejorative sense- from any other bronze or brown skinned people near by who spoke an Indo Aryan language). In fact in Britain there was an attempt to provethat the Irish were inherently defective as a "race". The Carthaginians would surely after the first generation have had at least some African (ok North African admixture to their recent dna and there is a notable physical difference between modern typical Egyptian facial features and those of Lebanese. (Some Egyptian features like hair are far more African than is commonly found in Lebabanon, and in the rest of North Africa to some degree this is also the case).  Anyway I think whoever pointed out that Jesus was human, got the racial description accurate. All the rest is just skin colour from adaption to climate change.80.192.59.202 17:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I said that the Egyptians portrayed themselves as brown. They portrayed Israelites as white, probably rather excessively so. These are the oldest images we have of Israelites. Paul B 17:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well from an Egyptian viewpoint, any "Semetic" people probably were "whiter" or "less brown" but again, thats a cultural interpretation, like when a Lebanese friend of mine said his mother was "blonde" and meant that whe was fairer skinned than average, but kind of Itialian skin-wise (to my eyes anyway). Did the Coptic language have an equivelant of the word "caucasian" or did they write anything about the Hebrew/Jewish people being white or brown (just out of interest)?80.192.59.202 18:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say is when we look at pictures by Egyptians, we may be reading "white" and "brown" where they were intending to depict "light brown" and "lighter brown" or "grey" and "greyer". Apparently various ancient cultures thought of colours that we see as seperate as the different shades of the same or had ones we dont (sorry i just vaguely recall this from attempts to study various odd languages here and there) and so just because we have visual evidence from Ancient Egyptians, doesnt mean that we dont influence its meaning by our own modern interpretations of what it represents.80.192.59.202 19:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent, excellent point, whoever you are. Truce m3 15:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hence the fact that 'racial' categories are at least as much cultural as biological. There is no rigid definition of 'white' and 'non-white' and never has been. Paul B 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

He Was Jewish
Any ideas to the contrary are simply misguided human misrepresentations, and should not be taken seriously. All of these attempts to depict Jesus in some other way may be interesting as social phenomena, but they should not be presented as "plausible theories". The article does not do enough to state the obvious answer to the question. Given the accounts we have of his life, including interactions with those from the lowest to the highest levels of the Jewish community in Israel at the time, his overall fame, the fact that he was called "Rabbi", etc., this whole subject should be treated as a matter of folklore, and a sociological curiosity, but not a serious topic of debate.


 * There is certainly nothing in the Bible to suggest that Jesus looked at all unusual for the area, but the question is really what was "usual" for the area at the time. When you add to that the Christian view that his birth was not a result of normal biology, but a miracle, then you can get the idea that he could have looked any way that God chose. Paul B 09:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, if he looked radically different from his peers, you would think it would have been written down somewhere, or someone would have killed him long before he reached the age of 16. Peyna 02:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And what evidence do you have that unusual looking children were murdered? We aren't talking about deformity here, after all. Paul B 12:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that looking that much different from everyone else around him, who would have looked pretty similar is not something that would have gone unnoticed. Peyna 12:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely the first thing to be stated in this article should be that there is little evidence to suggest what Jesus looked like? Its well established that he was Jewish and there is evidence (I would have thought anyway!?) from at least some Greek and Roman (and possibly Jewish sources, though the description by foreigners of any group tend to be more common due to the fact that they are describing a different grouo from themselves to their fellow citizens/countrymen/women etc back home and most Jews would know very well what they themselves looked like already!) So if it can be established to a reasonable extent of historical veracity what a Jewish Roman citizen of this period was likely to look like skin-wise and hair-wise etc, then this is the photo fit the cops would use as the template to hunt down their suspect:}80.192.59.202 20:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Did Jesus have a Race?
It would be interesting to know what race Jesus was. Could he have been Jewish? This would be most likely - he was born of a Jewish mother, and the Jews, in Christianity at least, are God's Chosen People. But, then again, Easterners came to worship him (Mt). So, it is possible that he was an Easterner, especially considering the difficulty someone from outside the Roman Empire might have had getting in. It might be possible he was a Roman. He was certainly not uncomfortable with Romans. There is no reason whatsoever that Jesus could have been of any race under the sun (or indeed over it, if such a place exists). Whatever race it is concluded Jesus belonged to, it raises racial questions about the nature of God. This might mean that God is white, or black, or asian, or, in fact, a member of any other race. If it is taken that all men are made in the image of God (Gen 1,2), it follows that all races are in the image of God. Granted, this is a very literal reading of the passage, but I think it is a reading that very few will object to my taking. So, if white, black, asian, etc. are all in the image of God, is God all races at once? Or none at all? Since, in Christianity, Paul tries to be all things to all men, God should have no difficulty in being black to the black man, white to the white man, and asian to the asian man. Or, indeed, black to the white man, asian to the black man, and white to the asian man. Or, indeed, any combination of races to a man of any race. By this argument, if Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus is a member of every race. He is black, yet concurrently white, asian and all the rest. If Jesus is of every race, then the colour of Jesus is unattainable - because he is every colour. Just different colours to different men. However, in light of Jesus' teachings, I would argue that Jesus' race is irrelevant. He heals Jews, but also gentiles. He does not discriminate in who he offers advice or counsel to because the one is black and the other white. Nor does the early church. It goes north into Asia Minor, east into Syria, south into Ethiopia and west into Rome. So, if Jesus is to have a race, I would say that it is whatever race you want him to be. And in the end, it doesn't matter. He claims to be equally loving of all men, regardless of race, and gives salvation equally to each man, regardless of colour.

89.241.211.139 19:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC) A View from the UK

Jesus was White!
Jesus was Jewish. Europeans, Jews, and Arabs are all Caucusoid, meaning that they have the same bone and facial structure, but getting on to the point, Jesus was a white man. This is a passage from "Acta Pilati" was was Pontius Pilate's report to Tiberius Caesar...

"To Noble Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome.

Noble Sovereign, Greeting: The events of the last few days in my province have been of such a character that I will give the details in full as they occurred, as I should not be surprised if, in the course of time, they may change the destiny of our nation, for it seems of late that all the gods have ceased to be propitious. I am almost ready to say, Cursed be the day that I succeeded Vallerius Flaceus in the government of Judea; for since then my life has been one of continual uneasiness and distress.

Among the various rumors that came to my ears, there was one in particular that attracted my attention. A young man, it was said, had appeared in Galilee, preaching with a noble unction a new law in the name of the God that had sent him. At first I was apprehensive that his design was to stir up the people against the Romans, but my fears were soon dispelled. Jesus of Nazareth spoke rather as friend of the Romans than of the Jews.

One day in passing by the place of Siloe, where there was a great concourse of people, I observed in the midst of the group a young man who was leaning against a tree, calmly addressing the multitude. I was told it was Jesus. This I could easily have suspected, so great was the difference between him and those listening to him. His golden-colored hair and beard gave to his appearance a celestial aspect. He appeared to be about thirty years of age. Never have I seen a sweeter or more serene countenance. What a contrast between him and his hearers, with their black beards and tawny complexions!"

As you can see, this is the actual report that Pilate sent to Caesar, it is housed in the Vatican, so if this doesn't prove Jesus was White I don't know what will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.22.102.7 (talk • contribs)


 * It proves nothing, because no serious scholar believes in the authenticity of this "report". Paul B 22:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Arabs aren't white, and if he's from the Middle East he might not be white.

Jesus was born in Middle East, thus he has the same colored skin as people from the Middle East. No racist thought, just logic. -Yancyfry

If you ingore the whole business of him having to travel for the census before birth...

Stop editing, Paul Barlow.
Paul Barlow, you are acting very childish, this is one account of the race of Jesus, don't edit it for your own racist wishes. I'm sorry you hate White People, but that is know reason to take it out on Jesus. There is know where that says "Acta Pilati" is fake. If you know a website please post it, back yourself up with facts. --CSArebel--

The Acta Pilati appears to have been "discovered" by someone called Mahon, who seems to be an anti-Semite keen to prove that Jesus was a Nordic guy. Even the website that promotes it has to acknowldge that it is generally considered to be fake. At most it can be included in examples of Nordicist claims. Paul B 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Where you there when he supposedly wrote it? --CSArebel


 * Were you? Where is the original text? Who translated it from Latin? What is the original Latin? Why does it seem to contain claims about the racial difference between Jesus and his "dark" interlocutors that are wholly alien to ancient Roman concerns, but typical of mid-Nineteenth century racial ideology? Paul B 20:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With no reference given to the actual document, for all a common reader might know, the entire premise of the section is a compleate fairy tale, as far as an uneducated reader might know, this document may not exist except in an editor's wild imagination. That is hardly a good way to add in content. Homestarmy 22:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

--CSArebel
 * well do you think he was black?, that is highly unlikely, if Acta Pilati isn't real, he would have most likely looked like a southern Italian.


 * Ummm...well the aunthenticity of a document does not depend on whether you like its contents. Acta Pilati has no real provenance and is a well-known forgery. Southern Italians, btw, are actually the descendents of Greeks and North Africans, CSA (so if jesus looked Southern Italian, he looked African in some sense!), however, jesus was, by any reasonable deduction, Jewish, a Semitic people. Why do so many people have such a vast problem with admitting that the vast bulk of the evidence and argument indicates that Jesus was a Semitic, Jewish man, and therefore most likely would have had a similar appearance to a modern Palestinian or Iraqi(Assyrian/Babylonian) - likely darker skinned, darker haired? There seems to be a lot of racism on all sides of this debate: some want to parse Jesus' race down to such a specificity that it makes one suspicious (as a historical person for whom we have no contemporaneous depictions, some approximation of his face is interesting, but not crucial, and determining the minutiae of his genetic heritage is a troubling pursuit); others want to use a highly symbolic, theologically-laden set of symbols in a dream-sequence of revelation to prove he was Swedish or something. How horrifying is it to both Paul Barlow and CSArebel that Jesus was a 1st Century Palestinian Jew? PS: PaulBarlow - Christian believers do in fact hold for the virgin birth, and while Christian would hold that God is capable of any miracle, many Christian writers point out that it is also a possibility that Jesus had only his mother's DNA, if one is a believer in traditional Christian views of the Incarnation. Hence, a Christian believer might well hold that Jesus was probably the "spitting image" of his mother.HarvardOxon 20:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If a Christian believer held that Jesus had "only his mother's DNA", then the believer would be saying that Jesus was a woman - the "spitting image of his mother" indeed! So that view is unsustainable. However you cut it traditional theology requires that normal ideas of race and inheritance simply do not apply in Jesus's case. If you take a secular view then you have to admit that his birth was natural - which could mean anything, including the ancient accusations that he was the offspring of a Roman soldier. The expansionist policy and conversions demanded by Hyrcanus a century before Jesus's birth weaken any claim that we can delimit the "race" of ancient Jews. Paul B 22:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * HarvardOxon, Southern Italians are a white as any European people, DNA research shows that there is a very very small amount of non-white ancesstry in Southern Italians, Sicily was controlled by the Moors for a while but the Moors are a mix of Arab and Berber people, look at any picture of a Moor, Arab, or Berber you will clearly see they are not Black.

Jesus was a descendant of King David who was 100% Semitic, The Bible clearly thats that mixing with non-Jews was a taboo in Hebrew Society. Jesus said...

"I, Jesus, sent My messenger to testify these things to you over the Body Politics. I am the Root and Race of David, the bright and morning Star."

Now Jesus affirms that the Messenger sent to John to reveal these things was indeed sent by Jesus, and identifies Himself as the bright and morning Star (cf. Numbers 24:17) and the Root and Race of David (cf. Isaiah 11:1). In saying He is the root and race of David, He is implying that He is both the source of David and the offspring of David. He is also saying that He is racially identical to David. This is important because both the Bible and history explicitly record a racial description of David. In the Septuagint, we read in I Samuel 16:12 of David (cf. I Samuel 17:42):

"And he sent and fetched him: and his was ruddy, with beauty of eyes, and good in the sight of the Master. And the Master said to Samuel, Arise, and anoint David, for he is good."

Here the word ruddyis translated for the Greek purrakos, which mean to have a ruddy complexion. The Hebrew word here is admoniy, a derivative of Adam, and of course Adammeans to show blood in the face, to blush or turn rosy. So the Bible says very clearly that David was white, for the Hebrew word adam and the description of ruddywere only applied to white men. Now Josephus also comments upon David, using slightly different words:

"Now so soon as David appeared at his father's summons - a boy with golden blonde skin, with fiery eyes and in other ways handsome - " (Jewish Antiquities, VI:164).

Here the words golden blonde are translated for the Greek xanthos, from which we get the English prefix xantho-, which means yellow. The Greek word meant a golden yellow, and when used of people it meant that they were blonde. When used of skin color (as Josephus explicitly does), it implies the golden yellow skin associated with blonde people. This means that the word was only and could only be used of people of White stock. And of course, only white people are capable of having rosy colored cheeks, as the term adam and purrakos or ruddy implies. So when Jesus says that He was of the race of David, He is purposely contrasting Himself to the dark, swarthy-skinned Edomite Jews, and any other non- whites who controlled Jerusalem at that time, and establishing once and for all times that like David, He was perfect in His race. --CSArebel--

OK Barlow, since you and CSARebel both seem to be trying to argue from different directions that jesus must have been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian, have at it.

Give me a definition of race. If you want to parse Jesus' race, and your goal seems to be to prove he wasn't a Palestinian Jew, as if this is a terrifying prospect, you'll have to start from scratch. What is race? It isn't religion: there are African/Black/Negroid people who are Christian, Muslim and Jewish. It isn't skin and hair color: "caucasoids" run the gamut from deeply swarthy to peaches and cream, from jet black hair to almost albino white. Are you alleging that we can classify race by Bertillion measurements, pull out those old Nazi calipers are start measuring brow ratios? By genetics? What does that mean, given that mitochondrial DNA is traceable to a common ancestor, and how many differences in the genome does it take to decalre that a new race has been formed? One wonders if the very attempt to so precisely classify race isn't in itself racist -- why is it a matter to which one dedicates ones life? CSARebel, by his very name, explains his interest: the South shall rise again, and re-establish chattel slavery of anyone darker than him. Until you can come up with a solid definition of race, all the redirects to Neo-Nazi websites you want to throw into articles are not going to add intellectual weight to your endeavours.HarvardOxon 04:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is proof that Semites are caucasoid.
 * I'm saying there is a possibilty that Jesus had Blonde hair and blue eyes, he most likely had brown hair and hazel eyes. Jesus was Jewish, Jews are a semitic people, the Semites are a branch of the Caucusoid family.

"DEFINITION OF SEMITES - from the Collins English Dictionary. "Semitic: a member of the group of Caucasoid people who speak a Semitic language, including the Jews and Arabs as well as the Ancient Babylonians (Iraqis), the Assyrians (Syria), and the Phoenicians (the Lebanese of today).

Semitic: a branch or sub-family of languages that includes Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew."

As I said before, it was against the law of the Hebrews in the time of Jesus for Jews to marry non-jews, therefore Jesus would not have any foriegn blood in him.

I am aware that Caucasoid people come in many shades but not black negroid, Persians, Kurds, and Turks are Caucasoid people. The Quote from the Collins English dictionary clearly states that Semites are Caucasoid, but they speak a Semitic Language, while Europeans, Persians, Kurds, and Turks speak an Indo-European Language.

By the way,HarvardOxon, since you brought up the subject of Neo-Nazis visit Stormfront.org, they say that Southern Italians, Sicilians, Spaniards, Greeks, ect. are white. --CSArebel
 * Actually, there are black Caucasoids in Ethiopia and southern India. As I said above, there was an extensive campaign of expansion and forced conversion to Judaism about 100 years before Jesus was born, so any arguments about racial "purity" are null. As for the notion that David had "golden" skin, that could mean that he looked like a Mongolian! Please Mr modestly-named "HarvardOxon", I am not arguing that "jesus must have been a blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian". Where have I said that? I said that we can't rule out anything, whether we take a traditional Christian view or a secular-rationalist one. Paul B 09:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find the fact that a person has attended some universities to be "immodest." Shall I confine myself, as your confrere does, to quoting neo-Nazi websites as "scholarship"? I still await a workable, usable, defensible definition of "race."HarvardOxon 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, gee-wizz. I had a fellowship at Yale. Who cares? Your attendances do not seem to have improved your ability to distinguish what people are actually saying. Asking for a workable definition of race is completely irrelevant in this context and is simply an evasion. The term has been used in interrelated ways defined by geographically defined taxonomies, endogamy and commonality of ancestry. These are, of course, not necessarily congruent, as even traditional race theorists like Coon recognised. Concepts such as "Caucasoid" are essentially based on an anthropometric taxonomy which was typically assumed to provide information about both geographically-specific adaptations and ancestry. Separating the two was always identified as speculative and problematic. Asking for a workable definition of racial differences is like asking for a workable definition of geographic differences. There are no rigid demarcations and there are several different ways of modelling distinctions. In this article we use broad geographical categories with more specific national ones in detailed points along with discussion of supposed physical features. The reader makes up their own mind about which dots to connect and why. Paul B 23:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, gee whiz, I didn't bring up the issue. You're the one who decided to get sarcastic because I made up a screen name from schools I attended. It doesn't list all my doctorates with the words, "Be very impressed." As for avoiding the issue, it isn't I: this article discusses the race of jesus, but no definition is given for race, and your latest post comes down to "Race means whatever you want it to mean." It didn't ask for a definition of "racial differences," I asked for a definition of "race." I think it's a bullshit and ultimately undefinable concept, and therefore irrelevant. You're the one who has allegedly dedicated part of your life, when not being a "Victorianist" to study of racial issues. The "I know it when I see it" approach is balderdash. The whole article, and your constant shaping of it to fit your own agenda, smacks of a hyper-intellectualist racism, like you'd rather write a book on why Jesus looked just like the British colonists around New Haven than relax and not feel threatened that he may have looked, well, not like Queen Victoria.HarvardOxon 02:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It really is rather amusing to be accused by CSArebel of deleting everything that "makes white people look good" while being accused by you of wanting to make Jesus look like "the British colonists around New Haven". You really ought to try actually reading what people say, rather than projecting your fantasies onto them. The word race does not have to be defined here, nor could it be. It's too complex a topic. That's why we have wikilinks. If you want to look at the definitions read a dictionary. Like many words it has a complex semantic field which is delimited in usage. Saying that it is complex is not the same as saying that it means whatever you want it to mean, though it does mean that it can be used in different, sometimes conflicting, ways. The article discusses the various usages where it is relevant to do so. This includes the complexities of overlapping and ambivalent usages - for example the comment about the relation between American "WASP" and Hispanic categories and older European imagery. Paul B 13:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

--CSArebel--
 * Paul B, how come you delete everything that makes white people look good? are you a non-white, a self-hating white, or just a stupid liberal? Jesus was Semitic, so he would have looked like a White Person as Jews are white, a lot of Jews and Arabs get offended when you say they are a differnet race, I know a lot of Arabs and Jews who prefer to be called white. Jesus was 100% Jewish, he did not have any African, Indian, European or even Arab in him, he was a direct descendant of King David, as I said before it was illegal for Jews to marry non-Jews, so he would not have had any forgien genes in him.

LMAO my God (not literally) but are you serious, European painters have created a few unreferenced drawing, in which their own ignorance of Geography and people enabled them to make such a simple judgement (He was black).

The bible also states that Jesus as a child moved to Egypt where he was inidstinguishable from the people surrounding him, and anyone with common sense would tell you that acient Egypt before the Arab invasion of 600A.C. was a black Civilization. You can even look at the Sphinx to see this

It then goes on to describe Jesus as a man with wooly hair (show me a non mixed white/European man with beady hair), and skin of bronze (obviously not white). 74.128.200.135 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You can't use the bible, especially revelations, for a description of jesus. This is what I am assuming you are referring to.

revealtions 1:12 thru say...revelations 1:20

This was a vision of christ....its not a physical description of a face to face meeting....

His head and ahir were as white as wool, as white as snow.....this is talking about christs purity...

His eyes were as a flame of fire.... this is the holy spirit in christ

feet of brass....sacraficial alters were made of brass....more likely bronze as I dont believe brass existed then....anyway...feet of brightly fired and polished brass.... it symbolizes his sacrafice...he was the ultimate sacrafice for mankind....

two edged sword comes flying out of his mouth...lol..... thats his judgement....swift and sharp like a sword....salvation or damnnation.

and so on.... most of the descriptions in the bible you see have really important meanings but when you are just looking for black or white....you really are missing the point.

You dont have to be a good decent christian to understand the bible....it just takes a little reading...understanding exactly what you are reading.. cornytheclownCornytheclown 01:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jews and arabs are NOT a race so being one of those will NOT determine the color of your skin. Rather your genetics would. As Jesus was born of one of us he would have gotten traits from his mother. His mother lived in the middle east which favors a darker skin pigment.


 * Darker than what? Paul B 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dogma quote
"He insists that beside his own testimony, 'there are three evidences that suggest the possibility: 1. He called everyone brother; 2. He liked Gospel; 3. He didn't get a fair trial.'" I don't remember this as being in Dogma at all. Unless it's in a deleted scene which I haven't seen, I say delete? --Butterboy 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen Dogma too, but assumed I'd just missed the line or didn't remember it. It seems that the line actually comes from a British journal. Apparently the attribution of the line to the movie was a mistake made by one anonymous editor merging a satirical addition by another. Paul B 23:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Half-White
Jesus had half of his genes from his Jewish mother and the other half from God.

God is white.

Jesus was at least half-white. Q.E.D.

God is white WOW!! Well anyway I think the idea that Jesus was white is rediculous really. The picutre portraying him as a blond haired blue eyed person, speaks ignorance in it's self. The area were Jesus was from was by no means inhabited by white people, but curly haried fair skinned people. 74.128.200.135 20:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Your wrong there, here are some paintings of people from Galilee, both nobility and commoners, from the time of Jesus:







The Bible refers to the ancestors of Jesus as "Ruddy and fair". Jesus was a White Mediterranean or Alpine.Arnie Gov 10:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"God is white WOW!!" Of course. Haven't you ever seen the picture? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:God2-Sistine_Chapel.png Tpellman 19:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol are you serious. Says who???? European painters my god that was the icing on the cake. 74.128.200.135 02:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * LMAO my God (not literally) but are you serious, European painters have created a few unreferenced drawing, in which their own ignorance of Geography and people enabled them to make such a simple judgement (He was black).


 * The bible also states that Jesus as a child moved to Egypt where he was inidstinguishable from the people surrounding him, and anyone with common sense would tell you that acient Egypt before the Arab invasion of 600A.C. was a black Civilization. You can even look at the Sphinx to see this


 * It then goes on to describe Jesus as a man with wooly hair (show me a non mixed white/European man with beady hair), and skin of bronze (obviously not white). Louisvillian 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So, now that this genius comment has been duplicated, are we to assume that 74.128.200.135 and Louisvillian are one and the same? Paul B 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know god was white? Cant god be anything god wants to be?

Actually, I imagine god to be black. Like very very black, black as the ace of spades kind of thing. Black peoples genes often make them at very high physical condition so what race is more fitting than a glistening, toned, well oiled black god? JayKeaton 06:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Since humans began in Africa they were black, since God made him in his image he is black, if half of Jesus' genes were from God, he is at least half-black.--AnY FOUR! 04:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * God doesn't exist. Jesus was just a Palestinian guy with hallucinations. Funkynusayri 06:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Race of Jesus → Jesus' Ethnic background — I would propose to change the article name's to Jesus' ethnic background, or similar. There is just one human race, although I understand that this is still very much discussed... Francisco Valverde 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add   or    on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) very weak support for proposed title. I would prefer Ethnicity of Jesus. I don't think its a matter of being politically correct as it is of being a more encyclopedic title. Besides, growing up in the South, the current title makes me think of all those "Jesus races" we had at church camp in the potato sack. First kid that got to the Jesus picture was able to later wack the "Redemption pinata" for candy. Memories... 205.157.110.11 01:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) oppose the move, the article dosen't need any lefty PC thing in it. There are a lot of differences in race, not just skin color. Arnie Gov 22:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose. The term "ethnic background" is very vague and misleading. "Race" is much clearer and more meaningful. That's what the article is about, so that's what it should be called. It's not about cultural identity. Paul B 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

My proposal is motivated by the use of the word race. Perhaps the expression ethnic background would not be too appropiate either, this could be discussed. It could also be Jesus' ethnic group. We could find a consensus in this matter. As far as I know, at the present moment there is just one human race, there were other human races in the past, but they are extinct nowadays, I invite you all to read the following reference. I do not find the proposal to be motivated by any political tendency but for actual scientific terminology. There was no discussion about skin colour either. Anyway, I invite anyone to find a better and more factual term for the article. Francisco Valverde 14:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "human race" is a colloquial, not a scientific expression. You are, in fact, taking about other species in the genus homo. Paul B 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutral - mostly because the present title sounds awkward, but so does the other. From race: The term race serves to distinguish between populations or groups of people based on different sets of characteristics which are commonly determined through social conventions. Patstuarttalk·edits 01:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nordicists and Afrocentrists propaganda
It is sad and pathetic how Nordicists progapandize about Mediterraneans being "Nordic". Their attempts at placing themselves in the Mediterranean civilizations is just a constant reminder of their profound inferiority complex towards Mediterraneans and self-consciousness of their insignificance in ancient history. A good example is the reaction of Afrocentrists, doing the same, but now attempting to place Africans in the Mediterranean as well all the time. Jesus, as a human being, was a Jew from Judea, and just naturally a Mediterranean. If he had been from Nigeria or from Norway no one would even go into these silly discussions. They are just the result of strongly racialized and ridiculous American and Anglo-Saxon cultures (definetely sick in relation to racial issues), that are contaminating Wiki everywhere with stupid contributions as if they were serious. What can we expect from the English speaking world! God saves us from these Vandals! 65.11.114.127 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually this article needs more information on Galilee and the artwork produced there at that time, since it shows the common people were white.

____________________________

1. Just a note. It may be a good idea to note the ancestry of Jesus as stated in the bible.(Jesus, son of Josef, son of blah blah......some of adam, son of God) 2. Also to note that Not all Jews are white. There are also asian Jews and Black Jews, Ethiopian Jews -Falasha come to mind immediatly.

Arnie Gov 13:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See, the term "Jew" is misleading. Jesus was an Israelite and a Judean. Most "Jews" at that time were not actually Israelites, they were infact Edomites who converted to Judaism. The high priest in the time of Jesus was actually not a Levite but, a Kenite. Archeology tells us that the Israelites ranged from Nordic to Mediterranean.


 * Nordic? How the heck? Funkynusayri 06:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

IT AMAZES ME
the extent to which some people will go to convince themselves Jesus was a blonde-haired, blue-eyed nordic. it's not rocket science, people ... he was middle-eastern, a palestinian jew ... i know it KILLS some aryans that they are worshipping a brown person, but you gotta deal with it. rather than bend history to fit your racist views, why not bend your racist views to fit history? just a thought. Truce m3 15:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who does that today? And how is it relevant to this talk page? Aryans are Iranians, by the way, who are Middle Easterners too, funnily enough. Funkynusayri 15:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Relevant because a big portion of this talk page is people insisting Jesus was white with blonde hair and blue eyes. Get real! Truce m3 18:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't you "get real"? Nowhere on this page does anyone ever say he had blonde hair and blue eyes. Nowhere. The only person who even suggests the possibility was "CSAREBEL", a far-out white supremecist who no-one agreed with. It's extraordinary how people fantasise about non-existant claims. The only people who mention this "blonde hair and blue eyes" shibboleth are people like you - who spend a lot of time insisting that he didn't, when no-one insists that he did. Paul B 08:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but I read through the Talk pages. There's more than one person making that claim. In fact that's what the majority of this talk page is about -- people stretching the truth to make Jesus a descendant of Norway, or something. Again, nice try. Truce m3 14:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You can repeat that as often as you like, but it won't make it true. Where on this page does anyone other than Csarebel ever say that it's probable that he had blond hair, let alone "insisting" that he did? Even he eventually resorted to saying it was only possible. Tell me. Paul B 09:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Bien attempt, but I'm not doing your work for you. With just a tertiary look, I can see Peyna, Alf and Paul B have all argued against Jesus' blackness. Sorry, deal with it. Truce m3 12:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So now you are changing the subject. You said "a big portion of this talk page is people insisting Jesus was white with blonde hair and blue eyes". That's quite different from arguing that he was unlikely to have been "black", and in fact you are even wrong about the three users you refer to. Alf's only relevant comment was "I have seen no proof per se that the Jesus was black articles and books are proven wrong". Amazing. And of course I know no-one says what you claim they say because I have read it, so don't talk disingenuous nonsense about "doing my work for me" and don't tell me to "deal with it" when the "it" exists entirely in your imagination. Are you incapable of being honest here? Deal with that. Paul B 12:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if it isn't in the article itself, it's unimportant. Funkynusayri 18:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I'll determine what is and isn't important to me. Truce m3 14:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, good. By the way, the image of a "European looking" Jesus could just as well depict a Middle Eastern looking Jesus, it was painted in Greece, which is in the Eastern Mditerranean anyway. Take a look at the left, the Greek Jesus next to an al-Saud. Funkynusayri 14:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True Truce m3 18:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article be "Color of Jesus"?
Or perhaps "Ethnicity of Jesus," because that's what we're really talking about. Modern anthropology recognizes only one race of humanity, and illustrates that the concept of different races was invented in the 1800s as a way of justifying expansion/imperialism/racist ideas at the time. Hence, racism created the races.

We know what Jesus' race was, it was human. This article is discussing his color or ethnicity. Truce m3 12:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The term 'human race' is a colloquialism, not a scientific term. 'Ethnicity' refers primarily to culture. Colour might be more relevant, but is essentially metaphorical (Asians are not "yellow"; Europeans are not "white" etc). Race is the clearest term in common usage, which is in line with WP naming policies. Anthropologists and biologists are divided about whether or not race is a useful concept. Paul B 12:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

 * Based on the genealogical and anthropological data in the Old Testament, certain scientists have reconstructed Jesus as most probably having fair skin with a reddish tint to his face and hair [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42087 ].

I've removed the above. The report refers to the Turin shroud, and says nothing about 'genealogical and anthropological data in the Old Testament' but the source may be legitimate. However the news agency WorldNetDaily seems to be associated with allegations of white suprematism. However if the Italian TV show is being accurately reported it might be legitimate to include. Paul B 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Aramaean?
Should we include that there is a fringe theory that Jesus was an Aramaean? This theory is held mainly by some followers of the Syriac Orthodox Church, but it is not limited to them and there are others who promote this theory. Just an example: &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the article isn't that specific, it already mentions he could have been Middle Eastern (which he of course was). I added it here though: "As such, it is not inconceivable that Jesus could have had traces of Arab, Aramean, Berber, Roman, Greek, Black African, Persian or Indian ancestry."

As it is, the article doesn't even mention he could have been ethnically Hebrew, heh. Funkynusayri 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * lol. But seriously, there are those who have serious theories about him being Aramaean. This is mostly based on that he spoke a dialect of Aramaic, and it's usually the Jew haters who can't stand that he was a Hebrew. I'll try to find some more information about it. &mdash; Aššur-bāni-apli (talk · contribs) 10:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)