I didn’t get the feeling you were being racist and I’m an atheist as well, dosen’t preclude you from having an interest in religious affairs.
The point, however, is that it is not deceptive. Leaving aside the cooks and cranks (who are, truly, a tiny minority of people painting pictures of Jesus), the majority of people who painted pictures of Jesus did so to establish a connection to Jesus within their own culture. A 16th century Japanese probably had a pretty good idea that Jesus did not have the “slanted” eyes of the East, given that his story was brought to them by “round-eyed” Jesuits from Europe, but he probably had no notion of how a Jewish preacher from first century Roman Palestine really looked or dressed. So he drew his picture of Jesus in a way to portray Jesus coming to redeem his people, with epicanthic folds and sashed robes, and the normal accoutrements of a 16th century Japanese. Renaissance painters probably had a better idea of what a 1st century Jew might have looked like, but that did not stop them from portraying Jesus (and the Holy Family and the Apostles) as Renaissance era Europeans.
The idea that artistic expression needs to be historically accurate is not an idea that has appeared very often in art history. No one (aside from a few cranks) really cares how each era and culture have portrayed Jesus. Everyone has presumed that Jesus, (who is reported to have come to save all people), will be portrayed in each culture as “one of them.” This, rather than an imagined historical record, is why people paint his picture, to begin with.
Kooks, not cooks! (yeeesh)
Well, if you want to engender a more constructive debate, perhaps you’d care to enlighten us as to exactly what your understanding Christianity is, and why it leads you to believe that the most accurate portrayal of Jesus (or his mother, for that matter) would be of a white, northern European-looking person.
For historical perspective, Jesus most likely looked like this:
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/jesus/photo/zoom5.html
The Discovery channel did a reconstruction based on the average man, who lived a life similar to and was around the age of Jesus in Palestine.
This is what I got from all the churches I went to as a child. Also it’s what I get from people in general. That and the bibles I remember having depicted him as white (the pictures anyway).
Again this is just MY limited understanding of it. I haven’t set foot inside of a church for more than two decades so take that at face value…
(forgot to make my second point.)
Also what I’m getting here so far is that it’s OK to portray Jesus in different images in order to appeal to an intended target group/race/audience. Thus helping the plight of Cristianity. Baring that logic in mind I guess you could say that if I wanted to appeal to the S&M crowd it would be OK to portray Jesus wearing a ball gag, tied down by leather straps; all the while being sodomized with a cattle prod. --Becuase after all, I’m just trying to get the heathernous S&M crowd to accept Jesus as their saviour.
In other words where is the line drawn and why?
I heard several times (most recently a UK documentary about the ancient wonders of the world) that the popular image of Jesus as a western looking guy was based on the face of the Statue of Zeus at Olympia.
Anybody want to back this up/shoot it down?
One of the things that bugged me as a white, English kid growing up in an almost all white American small town is that Jesus and Mary were almost always depicted as being blonde-haired and blue-eyed, two things I wasn’t. For that matter, it seemed angels, too, were almost always blonde-haired and blue-eyed. At the church’s annual Christmas pageants, Mary was inevitably going to be a pretty blonde, or so it seemed until I got old enough to run the things along with a friend of mine who was, ironically, a pretty blonde.
SHAKES, it would seem to me that in a fair and balanced perspective, such a portraying Christ as a blue-eyed blonde would be just as bothersome as portraying him with African features. Realistically, it isn’t. Me, I have no problem with either one. Seeing Christ depicted as a black man may draw my attention and give me cause to think, although the effect has worn off; nowadays, when we’re supposed to know better, seeing Christ depicted as a blue-eyed blonde may be a bit off-putting, depending on the context.
It seems to me Christianity has to fight a tendency to be or to appear exclusive. All too often I’ve read people write that if you X you can’t be a true Christian, whether X is “are homosexual”, “believe in evolution”, “question God” or any number of other things. When I was involved in my Diocesan Commission on Racism, I heard black people talk about walking into churches and feeling unwelcome, or being told that mixed race marriages were immoral (yes, this was within the last 10 years). This is just my opinion, but depicting Jesus as a black man would seem to be one way to fight that perception and tendency toward exclusivity and a way to get people to think. To this Christian, that’s a good thing!
CJ
There is a verse that called Jesus to have feet of brass and hair of lambswool. Or some nonsense like that.
- Honesty
Siege, that was well put. Which is basically what I was thinking in the first place. The ends justify the means. (my words)
However, I do find it very surprizing that very few people want to come out and say “Yes, he absolutely is (insert whatever race/color here)”
That to me still at least whispers a hint of sepratism, which I don’t think is in the animous Christianity or people like myself who are athiest but still believe in love thy neighbor.
BTW:
All I can say is WOW! I had no idea that still went on in CHURCHES of all places.
Pothead says-
Flavius Josephus, the guy with the reference to Jesus outside of Church-documents, is said to have said:
quote:
“…a man of simple appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature, three cubits high, hunchbacked with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows, so that they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair with a parting in the middle of his head, after the manner of the Nazorites, and with an undeveloped beard.”
along with the cite.
The cite references that description from The Hiram Key. Funny thing is I have seen that description given, not for Jesus, but for Paul- is comes from some of the apocryphal NT materials, not Josephus.
No reflection on Pothead, btw
I think the S&M crowd should be happy with the most common portrayal of Jesus… Sorry, everyone, but I think it needed to be said.
Seriously, the difference would seem to be that while supposedly Jesus was a first-century middle-eastern Jew, his message would seem to be consistent with being any other race. Most christians would probably consider it contradictory for him to have any sexuality at all, let alone S&M.
You know, that Jesus is one mean mother-
Shut yo mouth!
Heck, the man himself had no problem with symbolism (i.e. Luke 22:19 and :20, in which he describes bread and wine as stand-ins for his own body and blood) so why should he be offended by variant depictions of him, especially since that helps spread his word to cultures that may have been unknown to him in his time?
The Josephus ‘quote’ is almost certainly a twentieth-century invention, inspired by an eighth-century source which itself has almost no evidential authority. So much for Knight and Lomas’s scholarly expertise.
http://www.members.aol.com/FlJosephus2/MailAndFAQ.htm
As FriarTed says, there is a similar tradition for St Paul, although it is doubtful whether that should be taken very much more seriously.
Omigod, Jesus was Peter Lorre?!
I don’t think you’re racist, but I think you have a rather large blind spot here.
And where do you get this portrayal from?
So the only reason that you think that is because people you grew up with seem to take it for granted? You’re an atheist, so obviously you questioned them on some things. Why are you swallowing this particular bit whole?
Did you miss the links?
labmonkey’s link: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/
GIGObuster’s link: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/jesus/photo/zoom5.html
And again I ask: why is portraying him as a blond, straight-haired, fair-skinned, blue-eyed man with a small nose and thin lips better than portraying him as a brunette with kinky hair, dark skin, dark eyes, and thick lips?
This statement puzzles me. Clearly, no one posting here believes that Jesus was anyone other than a first century Jewish guy. There have been a couple of posts the ridicule people who believe (or, at least, claim) that Jesus was not a first century Jew. Why would we attempt to “Come out and say” the obvious.
I think the greater point that several of us have made is that accurate identification has nothing to do with art. None of the artists (even those who drew picures of a person with Eastern Mediterranean features) were attempting to draw a police sketch. It is not (usually) the point of art to document literal accuracy.
I don’t understand why you think that art should be intended as a police sketch or wanted poster (although I have seen a couple of “wanted posters” with the face of “Jesus” on them).
OK let substitute black for AFRICAN. Alright -and please nobody give me the garb about there are all types of Africans. I know that and I think you all know what I’m trying to say here.
Actually, with all due respect to Christians I don’t swallow any of it. However I was just thinking it should at least be consistant with the bible.
Also I was under the impression that first century Jewish people were white. Am I wrong on this one?
As far as the “art” thing goes. Eh, alright if you guys say so. But I’ve seen PLENTY of potraits of people long dead and gone that looked amazingly similar if not exactly as the person being painted. _And they sure as hell didn’t make their skin a different color.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I think thats the norm and NOT the exceptipon. (to paint people how they actually look.)
If they were, this is the first I have heard of it - is there any reason to believe that those living there 2000 years ago looked much different from those who live there now. And compare like with like, Jesus and his friends would have been little more than peasants, so please don’t compare them with Ariel Sharon.
**
Had Jesus actually sat for a portrait, I think your complaints would be justified - the object of a portrait is to produce an accurate likeness of the subject. The kind of artwork we are generally talking about WRT Jesus is not portaiture, since he never did sit down and get painted, having better things to do with his time (like saving the world 
), but what you might call “conceptual art”. IOW it is painted in order to deliver a message. A crucifiction scene may portray (or attempt to portray) the suffering of Jesus on the cross or the anguish of his friends and family or the intense spiritual events that were occuring at the same time - it may attempt to be accurate at the same time WRT details such as Roman uniform or the views of Jerusalem from Calvary, but that is not the main function of the artwork. A picture that portrays Jesus as a person of obviously sub-Saharan African origin is making a point other than the colour of his skin. As has been pointed out, to portray Jesus as of stereotypically Nordic origin is no less inaccurate, but possibly more dangerous because this image has become so pervasive in Western “Christian” society that it has started to become the “accepted” image of Jesus - as your own testimony reveals. Santa Claus has undergone a similar transformation - from a tall man in long flowing robes to a short, fat man in a red fur jacket (Cite), an image which is now unchallengable.
As for the Bible - I think that, as a book written (mostly) by Jews for (mostly) Jews, the issue of skin colour was not one that needed to be raised, as it would be taken as read. I would be surprised if you (or anyone else) could find a description of anyones appearance - skin colour in particular - in the Bible.
Grim