Why is Jesus White? Exploring the History of Representation

[Char. Limit]

Considering his birthplace and homeland, one would expect Jesus Christ (yes, THAT Jesus Christ, the one from the movie and, incidentally, the God for two billion people) to be sun-darkened, and have almost dark skin. Really, Jesus Christ should have the same hair color and skin tone as Salah Al-Din, considering how close their birthplaces are.

In other words, dark tan skin and black or very dark brown hair.

So why is Jesus invariably shown as white with light brown hair?

My only possible answer is quite cynical, and thus possibly not the right one (my answers are never quite right): He was represented that way (FYI: "Thou shalt not worship any graven image") to appeal to Europeans so that the church would spread more in the early stages and tradition took hold from there.

 

[hamster143]

You're absolutely right. He did not look at all like his modern depictions. I'd even guess that he looked more like Bin Laden than Salah Al-Din. He looked distinctly middle-eastern and he probably had short curly dark hair (there are even some lines in the New Testament to the effect that it's improper for a man to have long hair!)

Why is he represented that way then? The early church did not use icons or depictions of Jesus Christ at all. Icons did not become widespread till the Dark Ages. During the Dark Ages, people were quite naive and their knowledge of the world was poor. Very few westerners knew what people in far away lands looked like. When they drew icons and pictures, they used people around them as references.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So why is Jesus invariably shown as white with light brown hair?

You need to widen your own scope.
http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/asian_icons/chin-mary-jesus-1.html"
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/art/2009/10/148_27288.html"
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=211063211&listingid=42058926"

 

[Char. Limit]

Well, although the Chinese and Korean (Choson or Koryo?) pictures do not, in my opinion, portray an accurate Jesus, the so-called "Black Jesus" looks to me to be the closest one to the real person.

Although Jesus would look a lot like the Prophet Muhammad, if you think about it... anyone have an image of the Prophet?

Now, before a mob of angry Muslims show up demanding my head (or worse, an apology), it was a joke. I know about the forbidding.

 

[drankin]

Well, although the Chinese and Korean (Choson or Koryo?) pictures do not, in my opinion, portray an accurate Jesus, the so-called "Black Jesus" looks to me to be the closest one to the real person.

Although Jesus would look a lot like the Prophet Muhammad, if you think about it... anyone have an image of the Prophet?

Now, before a mob of angry Muslims show up demanding my head (or worse, an apology), it was a joke. I know about the forbidding.

You jest about Muhammad? Do you know the penalty for this?

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm guessing... I run free because of the anonymity of being on a forum.

But enough about a little jest (it wasn't really about Muhammad, but those Danish guys).

 

[Jack21222]

My Arabic professor was born in Nazareth, so he postulated that Jesus would have looked a lot like he did. He was a medium-to-light skinned Arab.

 

[radou]

I'm glad this question/thought is put in the context of logic, and not in the (tiring) context of political correctness.

 

[MotoH]

Jesus was middle eastern, and that is how I see him whenever I go to church, or whenever I pray. The whole white Jesus, as it has been said before, is because it is far easier to have someone accept someone as their savior when they are the same skin colour as you are. As far as I know, the church is moving towards a more accurate depiction of Jesus.

Most of the shows about Jesus on various history channels, has shown him as a dark, middle eastern man, with shorter curlier hair. Which looks way better than some albino dude walking around!

 

[leroyjenkens]

Some arabs look like they could be white. Just because you can look at somebody and say "hey, he looks white", doesn't mean they are. "White" isn't exactly a good description.
Race is a vague description of somebody. Most black people that aren't in Africa have other races mixed with them, yet they're still considered black. Why? Because they look black. If a black person and white person have a child and the darker skin is inherited, the child is black because he looks black. But if those same people have a child and he inherits the light skin of the white parent, that makes him white, because he looks white. Two siblings of two different races, simply because they look different.
Here's a common picture of Jesus:
http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/images/jesus.jpg

Is he white? How do you know? Because his skin looks too light? I've seen Arabs with that shade of skin. Is it because of his hair color? I've also seen Arabs with that hair color. So what makes him white?

You need to widen your own scope.
Chinese Jesus
Korean Jesus
Black Jesus

I could see Jesus looking white or even black, since Africa is right there. But come on, Asian? That just doesn't make any sense.

I'm guessing... I run free because of the anonymity of being on a forum.

But enough about a little jest (it wasn't really about Muhammad, but those Danish guys).

I'll say whatever I want, Muslims don't scare me. If they're reading this and have the wherewithal to track me down and defeat me in battle, they earned it.

 

[FredGarvin]

Boy. You're really pushing the realm of new topics to debate. How long has this been around? Every culture has their own interpretation. What is so wrong with that? It has been shown that other cultures have their own. Why hype on the "caucasian version?" How about thinking critically and not hop on the bash-the-white-man bandwagon?

 

[Pinu7]

Not just Jesus, but look at how Mary is depicted! She is also very Europeanized!

Edit: The Native American Christians depicted Jesus as: http://mattstone.blogs.com/photos/christian_art_native_amer/native_american_jesus1.jpg

Also, it is no secret that Jesus was European-wise, not just the skin and hair color, but his facial features, plus it would be ridiculous to say that this depiction:
http://media.bestlatin.net/jesus_teaches_prayer_76f5.jpg
looks Arabic.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Mark Twain wrote a short essay relating how he shocked his wife and daughters by asserting Jesus must have been a "negro". He insisted all the locals were dark skinned when he visited the Holy Land, but they accused him of being irreverent for purposes of making mischief.

 

[zomgwtf]

Why should Jesus be any other way? He was born in Israel which at the time was jewish land not arabic. jewish =/= arabic.

He was born to a virgin mother. So he's half jewish and half... ?
I think jesus was probably a tanned person but I don't think he was dark like that African American depiction. The way that I see Jesus in most art is as tanned... and you can't talk about his facial features being non-arab because his birthplace was NOT arab at the time so why must he be born with arab features?

 

[rootX]

Why should Jesus be any other way? He was born in Israel which at the time was jewish land not arabic. jewish =/= arabic.

He was born to a virgin mother. So he's half jewish and half... ?

Half Arabic ... Doesn't his name has Hussein in it?
Jesus Hussein Christ

 

[Kronos5253]

Some arabs look like they could be white. Just because you can look at somebody and say "hey, he looks white", doesn't mean they are. "White" isn't exactly a good description.
Race is a vague description of somebody. Most black people that aren't in Africa have other races mixed with them, yet they're still considered black. Why? Because they look black. If a black person and white person have a child and the darker skin is inherited, the child is black because he looks black. But if those same people have a child and he inherits the light skin of the white parent, that makes him white, because he looks white. Two siblings of two different races, simply because they look different.

I don't know about other people here, but generally if I consider what race someone is, I look at skin color first, then their facial/bodily features second, then I decide what I think they are. After that I usually ask just to see, but I'm pretty good at knowing from looking. Every race has distinctive features about them that are clues to where they are from, regardless of what color they are. Color is just a good clue to go by, at least for me. If they're dark skinned they could be a form of Spanish, Black, Native American, Middle Eastern, Indian, or Italian (I might have left a couple out). I work in a customer-facing job, so I see a lot of different types of people come through. And I've seen people from all of the "races" that have had the same skin color. So going by skin color is a really bad way of telling what race they are, and you're going to offend a lot of people if you just assume you know someone's race just by the color of their skin.

Here's a common picture of Jesus:
http://www.photoethnography.com/blog/images/jesus.jpg

Is he white? How do you know? Because his skin looks too light? I've seen Arabs with that shade of skin.I've also seen Italians with that color skin, and Spanish people, and Indian people, and white people, and black people. Is it because of his hair color? I've also seen Arabs with that hair color. So what makes him white? The structure of his face. It has a lot more European tones to it than a middle-eastern would.

^^ See above

 

[Char. Limit]

Boy. You're really pushing the realm of new topics to debate. How long has this been around? Every culture has their own interpretation. What is so wrong with that? It has been shown that other cultures have their own. Why hype on the "caucasian version?" How about thinking critically and not hop on the bash-the-white-man bandwagon?

One thing I want to clear up here: This was NOT my intent. In fact, this was so far from my intent that my intent can't see it. Radou's comment that it is illogical is so far closer to the truth that it is not funny.

Oh, wait, it is, because my politics include hating those
who irrationally bash white (Christian) men. And I'm accused of bashing... white men.

 

[hamster143]

Since no one brought this up, I will. Here's a supposedly scientific reconstruction of his appearance:

 

[Proton Soup]

Why should Jesus be any other way? He was born in Israel which at the time was jewish land not arabic. jewish =/= arabic.

He was born to a virgin mother. So he's half jewish and half... ?
I think jesus was probably a tanned person but I don't think he was dark like that African American depiction. The way that I see Jesus in most art is as tanned... and you can't talk about his facial features being non-arab because his birthplace was NOT arab at the time so why must he be born with arab features?

i'm not sure you had ashkenazi jews at that time, they would have been sephardic and not really distinguishable from their arab brethren. jews that have wandered from their homeland are somewhat more intermarried with the locals.

 

[Jack21222]

Since no one brought this up, I will. Here's a supposedly scientific reconstruction of his appearance:

"Scientific" based on what?

 

[mgb_phys]

In old cairo - is a little town from the first century near Cairo, There are frescoes on the church from the 3rd C.
Jesus was Aramaic and looks almost Ethiopean (black skin but thinner more european features) in the earliest ones, arabs came slightly later.

But it should be easy to know what he looks like - given that he appears in just about every food stuff on a daily basis in the US

 

[Jack21222]

In old cairo - is a little town from the first century near Cairo, There are frescoes on the church from the 3rd C.
Jesus was Aramaic and looks almost Ethiopean (black skin but thinner more european features) in the earliest ones, arabs came slightly later.

But it should be easy to know what he looks like - given that he appears in just about every food stuff on a daily basis in the US

And these were painted in the 3rd century? You mean 300 years after Jesus lived? I somehow doubt their accuracy after so much time has elapsed. That'd be like trying to paint somebody today who lived in 1700.

 

[mgb_phys]

True but it was at least painted by the same ethnic group.
So a painting of a pilgrim father by a modern (white) American would at least be vaguely accurate, compared to a modern American painting of a pre-columbian Indian

 

[hamster143]

"Scientific" based on what?

Based on what historians know about appearances of lower-class residents of Israel in the 1st century C.E., and an actual skull recovered in a dig in that area.

 

[lisab]

In old cairo - is a little town from the first century near Cairo, There are frescoes on the church from the 3rd C.
Jesus was Aramaic and looks almost Ethiopean (black skin but thinner more european features) in the earliest ones, arabs came slightly later.

But it should be easy to know what he looks like - given that he appears in just about every food stuff on a daily basis in the US

But the painters of that fresco may have been doing just what people do now, projecting their own likeness on Jesus.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why should Jesus be any other way? He was born in Israel which at the time was jewish land not arabic. jewish =/= arabic.

He was born to a virgin mother. So he's half jewish and half... ?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Good point!

Clearly God is European.

 

[Tobias Funke]

Based on what historians know about appearances of lower-class residents of Israel in the 1st century C.E., and an actual skull recovered in a dig in that area.

Ah, I see.

"We found a skull"
"Zoom in and enhance"
"He's brown"
"Zoom factor 12 million"
"JESUS!"

 

[Loren Booda]

How did Jesus' DNA differ from that of other people?

 

[Pinu7]

Why should Jesus be any other way? He was born in Israel which at the time was jewish land not arabic. jewish =/= arabic.

Failure. Remember that modern Israelites =/= ancient Israelites because of the mass immigration of EUROPEAN and AMERICAN Jews to there after WWII. :p

Jesus was probably not white, and if he was, that would probably be mentioned the Bible because it was so obscure.

 

[lisab]

How did Jesus' DNA differ from that of other people?

Well since you ask, I happen to have a picture of it:

 

[LBloom]

Jesus probably didn't look Arab in the current sense (bin laden, Hussen,etc.) A couple things need to remembered

1) The historical Jesus had Jewish ancestry and came from Israel. People from Palestine, Israel, and Lebanon more likely had more interaction with Turkey and other civilizations because they bordered the Mediterranean and were therefore more light light skinned than Arabs in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq (probably some mixing with the Persians there.) Also, different environment led to lighter skin

He probably looked more like a Sephardic/Mizrahi or darker skinned Ashkenazi (due to the environment) than an Arab. It's kind of silly to use these terms since they originated long after his lifetime.

2) Jesus is white because the head of the catholic church was in Rome. It's hard to convince a bunch of white people to follow some dark skinned guy whose belonged to a religion they distrusted. It was a great idea, just wasn't accurate...

 

[zomgwtf]

Well since you ask, I happen to have a picture of it:

Holy crap that killed me.

and I also know that modern Isrealites don't look like the Jews of Jesus's time period but the Jews didn't look exactly like the arabs. I've seen plenty of those 'reconstructions' of people around the time and I don't really notice much difference from the paintings... the skin tone is a BIT darker in some cases and the facial features are more hardened. I do not think that the reason that the facial features are softened is to make him look more European I think it's to show his divinity, purity, etc. etc. the exact same reasons that we give that pleasant glow to girls in magazines. The girls still look the same in person just subtle differences to make them more 'pleasing' to the public. I'm pretty sure in the bible it says that Jesus was not beautiful...

 

[GeorginaS]

Since no one brought this up, I will. Here's a supposedly scientific reconstruction of his appearance:

Maybe you'd like to choose your words a little more carefully. How about, "This is a scientific reconstruction of a male face from the skull of someone who lived in the area that Jesus is said to have lived in around the same time era". I believe that's a bit more accurate, no?

Renaissance painters, including da Vinci, sometimes incorporated the likenesses of patrons, who were paying him to paint, and their families into religious works. He wasn't the only one. That would populate the Holy Land with all kinds of fair skinned people in religious depictions, would it not? Plus, people incorporate what they know or what they see around them when they create art. Yes, current historical consideration would reasonably give less of a Western appearance to a man born in the Middle East 2,000 years ago.

I'm pretty sure in the bible it says that Jesus was not beautiful...

There's not one writer in The Bible that had met Jesus personally. The first person to write about him wrote 40 years after his death. There are no first-hand accounts. Take that for what you will.

 

[zomgwtf]

There's not one writer in The Bible that had met Jesus personally. The first person to write about him wrote 40 years after his death. There are no first-hand accounts. Take that for what you will.

Well I wouldn't go so far to say that they hadn't met Jesus personally, from what I understand it could be perfectly plausible that at least Mark had met Jesus. He would have had to have been very young however.

Regardless I do not think that it matters to my original point that it says Jesus was not beautiful. Since the gospels were written about other people who lived with Jesus, not about the people himself.

What I'm saying is that imagine I think that you were not beautiful, I don't write it down but I still tell people the story (no offense, I'm not meaning to talk about you personally just making a point.). The someone decides to write down the story... in a book saying that I didn't think you were beautiful. Does the fact that the writer didn't know you have any impact on whether or not you were considered beautiful??

 

[GeorginaS]

Well I wouldn't go so far to say that they hadn't met Jesus personally, from what I understand it could be perfectly plausible that at least Mark had met Jesus. He would have had to have been very young however.

Ask any theological scholar, read some in-depth theology. No one who wrote The Bible met Jesus. It's nice to know that you wouldn't go that far, but some serious study by some seriously knowledgeable people do go that far. Start with Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, work your way over to Karen Armstrong's work in A History of God and then, if you ever get the opportunity, sit down with a serious theologian who has a PhD in the stuff, and they'll tell you.

What I'm saying is that imagine I think that you were not beautiful, I don't write it down but I still tell people the story (no offense, I'm not meaning to talk about you personally just making a point.). The someone decides to write down the story... in a book saying that I didn't think you were beautiful. Does the fact that the writer didn't know you have any impact on whether or not you were considered beautiful??

No one who wrote about Jesus had any first-hand knowledge of him. Heresay isn't regarded as reliable information. In your example all I'd take away from that was that you, personally you, did not think I was appealing. It would not directly speak to what other opinions may be held by other people or the symmetry of my facial features.

Nonetheless, define beauty and tell me, again, please, how that entered into people portraying Jesus in ways that are familiar to them?