History Why is Jesus Often Depicted as White?

[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?

 

[zomgwtf]

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.

I have talked to people who have studied theology maybe not so far as getting a PhD. but I wouldn't really want to talk with those people anyways. All the stories I've heard of people with PhD's in theology running their mouth about this and that kind of puts me off to them. (I guess that's why you included the modifier 'serious') I DO however know that scholars put the first writing of Marks Gospel at around 60A.D.. With Jesus dying in 30A.D. it is perfectly plausible that the writters of the bible lived while Jesus was alive they were possibly even old enough to remember these events. Even if they hadn't personally met Jesus they could have personally known one of the Twelve Apostles which is who in the bible it states said that Jesus was not considered beautiful...

It's nice how you can sit down and throw around 'seriously knowledgeable people know this and that' and portray it as FACT when there IS another side which IS also plausible.

Also notice NO BODY here has claimed that these people had personal relationships with Jesus, talked with Jesus or even 'followed' Jesus or anything of the sort... I said in the bible it says he was not beautiful you counter with they never 'personally met him'.

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?

Then nothing in the bible is reliable and everything the scholars you mentioned before conclude is faulty since it is based on heresay as well. So maybe the first gopsel was actually written in 100A.D. and they wrote it in such a way to attempt to deceive us! That's rediculous, if in the bible it was written to say that Jesus was not considered beautiful then you can pretty much accept that if the Jesus of the bible lived that it is very likely that he was not considered beautiful.

The reason this has to do with the OP is that I say that pictures of Jesus are shown to be MORE beautiful and APPEALING to other people. Not to make him more 'European'. This was a VERY popular way of doing art during those days. I could patronize you the way you have me with quite an attacking tone and references to knowledgeable people but I'm not bored enough for that yet.

 

[Char. Limit]

zomgwtf, you seem to be someone, like myself, who finds argument fun, as long as it isn't circular.

I don't claim to be a theologian, even if I do claim to be Christian. Thus, I cannot skillfully argue Georgina's points here. I'm not sure if I agree with them or not.

It is possible what you are saying, however.

 

[GeorginaS]

The reason this has to do with the OP is that I say that pictures of Jesus are shown to be MORE beautiful and APPEALING to other people. Not to make him more 'European'. This was a VERY popular way of doing art during those days. I could patronize you the way you have me with quite an attacking tone and references to knowledgeable people but I'm not bored enough for that yet.

Well, hrm. It's interesting that you can hear "tone" in pixels. It's further interesting that you want to threaten me with being patronised by you.

Given that I've evidently upset you, I'll withdraw from this and leave you to your own conjecture. I've offered the names and authors of a couple of books that are very accessible, very well researched, and absolutely fascinating if you care to delve a bit further into what people who have dedicated years of their lives to research the stuff you're theorising about. They have evidence and everything.