Inspired by an article I read in a paper today which brought up the issue of the American/European depictions of Jesus as compared to what he most likely actually looked like (can we please leave aside any debates on whether or not he was a real person).
Again the article began with the premise that depicting Jesus as a pale-skinned stereotypical man of European descent was racist and Eurocentric and never really questioned this assertion.
My question is if it really is such a bad thing? In my experience different cultures often depict Jesus as being of similar appearance to the dominant and/or traditional physiology of their inhabitants. In fact one of the most striking and powerful depictions of Jesus I’ve seen was a stained-glass window in an American chapel in which he was shown as of Native American ancestry.
I realise the whole race and culture subject is a conversational minefield, no offence meant in any of the above.
I took a trip through Guatemala as a kid, I seem to recall that they depicted Jesus as Hispanic. My impression is that most people tend to portray Jesus (and other biblical scenes) according to their culture. If you can find a pic of the Native American Jesus I’d love to see it.
ISTM that there’s two possible errors here. One is westernizing (or whatever-izing) Jesus until you start to think that your own culture is Biblically decreed, the other is seeing Jesus as a historical figure only and missing the relevancy of his message to modern life. It’s certainly arguable that Western culture falls more into the first problem, but I think we’d lose something if we only ever tried to portray Jesus in an historically accurate way.
From a Christian standpoint, I think it’s valuable to depict Jesus in culturally specific ways. It’s certainly not historically accurate, but it fits well with his message of intercultural acceptance; depicting Jesus as Hispanic in Hispanic countries has been valuable historically because it helps reinforce the notion that Christianity is not a “white” religion, that Hispanics are equally included in salvation, and a generally inclusive message. It’s not realistic, but it is a useful metaphor. From a secular standpoint, I think that this message has shown real dividends in Latin America especially through Liberation Theology.
appleciders more or less beat me to what I was going to say. Given the goal of bringing as many to Christian faith as possible (“go and make disciples of all nations” and the rest), having a depiction of Christ that looks more relatable to the target audience seems like a good idea.
Someone once told me that the “conventional” image of Jesus in Europe, dating from the Byzantine era, was based on conventional iconography of Alexander the Great. In some theological metaphors, Alexander is seen as a forerunner of Jesus.
So… Christianity has been “doing it wrong” for 1700 years or so…
In extremis, there are a few depictions of Jesus as a woman… The idea is to imply universality. Not only is Jesus an “everyman,” but an “everyone.”
Why argue over whether or not he had a beard when you can argue over whether or not he had a penis?
One of the ways that some theologians look at Jesus (the Christ, not the man) is that he fills the same role as the Hellenistic Logos, the being that stands between the omnipotent, eternal, unknowable God and weak, temporal man as a sort of “bridge”. When coupled with the scriptural statement that man is created in the image of God, it is logical to depict Jesus, the Christ, as the appropriate ethnicity or gender. Jesus, the man, would have been a short, Levatine Jew.
I think a Western Jesus is only a problem if we present to non Westerners as an accurate image. I am sure it has slowed missionary efforts. He was a Jew at least on his mother’s side and should be depicted as such. He had enough trouble while on earth without being blue eyed and blond.
And some have said a famous statue of Zeus influenced Christ Pantocrator. Seen throughout the Orthodox world, there’s also a fine version at Washington DC’s Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. (That gaudy Romanesque/Byzantine church is dedicated to His Mother & filled with chapels depicting Her in every guise; She’s always been a shapeshifter.)
Artists of the High Middle Ages & the Renaissance mostly depicted Biblical scenes set in their own world–peopled with (mostly) Europeans in the attire of the day. Historical & ethnic accuracy just weren’t important.
Some artists of the Victorian era visited the Holy Land for “authentic” details (assuming nothing had changed since Year Zero), yet still depicted Jesus as a blondish aesthete. Search, if you dare, for those saccharine Saviors–often reproduced cheaply so they could accompany missionaries ministering to the heathen…
Of course it’s not a problem if artists depict Jesus as looking “like them.” (My major problem with the Victorian portraits is their insipidity.)
I’ve never seen it as racist. By creating Jesus in their image, they’re making him more accessible to their people. That in no way implies that Jews are inferior. The writer is looking for a fight where there isn’t one.
Historical accuracy is not a priority in religion.
I agree, but I asked the question because what the writer was saying doesn’t appear to be an uncommon viewpoint.
On that note I also recall reading an article once where they tried to recreate an ‘historically accurate’ image of Jesus based on the scanty information we have, if I recall correctly he was shown as a dark complexioned stocky man with rugged features, certainly not conventionally attractive but with a definite presence. It was quite well done.
I’m not a bible scholar but isn’t there a passage somewhere that can be interpreted to mean the Messiah will/would not be a physically attractive person. That would put an interesting spin on the Second Coming in this media directed looks-obsessed age.
btw on a side-side note there was a British television series a few years back about the return of Christ, called ‘The Second Coming’ surprisingly enough. Again I recall it being quite well done and interestingly enough the writer is an athiest.
Yes, it’s in Isaiah 53:2, and refers to Jesus as he appeared before the crucifixion:
A model he was not. It’s possibly worth noting that most cult leaders aren’t conventionally attractive either, but have energy and a larger than life personality that draw people in. I suspect Jesus-the-man was something like that.
