This question has puzzled me for years. Every time I see a picture of Jesus, he’s a white guy brown hair with a neatly trimmed beard. But, being that he was born in Nazareth, wouldn’t he look more Middle Eastern?
I think the consensus is that Jesus was Middle Eastern and probably very dark complected. The white Jesus is a product of people not wanting to look at an “ethnic” Jesus in church.
The image of Jeses is based on the face of an image of Zeus.
It is an example of how Xtianity has co-opted ideas & images from other faiths as convienent.
First of all, Jesus was “white”. Middle-Eastern Jews are considered white by all accounts. He probably wasn’t all that dark-skinned either. Look at Jews in the middle-east today and see how dark you consider them.
You mean the jews that emigrated to Israel after WWII? From Europe? Those jews?
I expect they had a little genetic drift.
Oh! And my first chance to use this smiley! ;j
I thought Jesus was a Gentile…
I know people don’t like “Hey, guess what Google Ads said!” tangents, but this one I had to share. The ads are:
- A site for teens to learn more about God
- A site offering free shipping on Shaving Cream
Whaaaa?
Please tell me you’re joking. 
Oh look! Hotels in Nazareth! Man these ads are useful.
I suppose that if you accept that god is Jesus’s father, he could look like whatever god wanted him to look like. Would he have had any of Mary’s genetic material? But nevermind that.
What ArrMatey! said. And even so, those people don’t look very much like Jesus as you might think he looked based on artwork. Perhaps it’d be better to compare Jesus to modern-day Palestinians or other people who didn’t “leave?”
Here’s a pointless comparison, just for amusement purposes. They don’t look much alike to me.
Do you have any evidence for either of these claims?
The reason that Jesus appears European in most of our art is that most of the art that we see, (particularly religious art), comes from (Christian) Europe. People tended to paint using familiar models. If we go back to the earliest images of Jesus, usually found in Greece, he appears to be a typical Mediterranean man. (There were probably similar representations made in Asia Minor, Egypt, and the Levant, but many (most?) were probably destroyed either during the various iconoclastic purges within Christianity or later by the Muslims with their ban on human representation in religious art.) Later depictions tend to reflect the appearance of the people among whom the paintings were created, whether late Medieval Italian or Italian or Dutch Renaissance, or whatever. If you find the images created in Japan during Christianity’s brief missionary foray in the early 16th century, you find images of Jesus that appear Japanese.
This is one area where, rather than Christianity “co-opting” another culture, Christianity has merely adopted the local culture.
As to “white,” the question brings so much baggage that we first have to spend days wrangling over what the term means before we can provide an answer.
In the systems of Linnaeus and Blumenbach, Jews were “Cauacasian” and, therefore, white. In the later attempts by European ethnologists to set up Europeans as some sort of pinnacle of humanity (particularly among the German effort to create an “Aryan” ancestry), then Jews were somehow excluded from the European (particularly Aryan) group. Among some odd wingnuts, today, (none of their claims based on science), there are some Europeans who are not “white.”
So, until we figure out what definition one is using, we cannot correctly answer the OP’s question.
Depends on what you mean by “white,” exactly - “Caucasian” or simply very light skinned. Indigenous Middle Eastern populations (both Jews and Arabs) are traditionally considered to be Caucasian and mostly a medium-brown in skin color. As **ArrMatey ** says, however, a large number of Jews in Israel today are immigrants or descendants of immigrants from Europe and thus are paler-skinned than the local population due to admixture with northern Europeans.
Jesus was “white,” but he wouldn’t have been pale-skinned.
He also spoke in english. At least, that’s what my bible tells me.
“If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.”
Texas Governor Ma Ferguson, est. 1924.
Jesus was most definitely Jewish. I don’t think there is any organized belief to the contrary.
Jesus was most definitely Jewish. I don’t think there is any organized belief to the contrary.
And we can’t say that often enough.
And, for some reason, always in red.
Not genetic drift, but rather they didn’t remain ethnically “Middle Eastern” due to interbreeding with European populations. Genetic drift is just random mutations that accumulate in isloated populations, and that generally are not due to natural selection.
Sadly I think there is. At least that modern Jews are not Biblical Jews. Or that in some sense Jesus doesn’t “count” as Jewish. The Christian Identity people and such. So there is an organized belief if only as the product of disorganized minds.
I always assumed he was Latino.