We take it for granted that the only controversy regarding Jesus is whether or not he was killed by Jews or Romans; or whether the depiction of his execution by Mel Gibson is too violent for children, all the while ignoring a much larger issue, which is why does Gibson (and for that matter every other white filmmaker or artist in the history of the faith) feel the need to make Jesus white: something he surely could not have been and was not, with all due apology to Michelangelo, Constantine, Pat Robertson, and the producers of “Jesus Christ Superstar.”
That the only physical descriptions of Jesus in the Bible indicate that he had feet the color of burnt brass, and hair like wool, poses a slight problem for Gibson and other followers of the white Jesus hanging in their churches, adorning their crucifixes (if Catholic), and gracing the Christmas cards they send each December.
It is the same problem posed by the anthropological evidence concerning the physical appearance of first century Jews from that part of Northern Africa we prefer to call the “Middle East” (and why is that I wonder?). Namely, Jesus did not look like a long-haired version of my Ashkenazi Jewish, Eastern European great-grandfather in his prime.
But to even bring this up is to send most white Christians (and sadly, even many of color) into fits, replete with assurances that “it doesn’t matter what Jesus looked like, it only matters what he did.”
Which is all fine and good, until you realize that indeed it must matter to them what Jesus looked like; otherwise, they wouldn’t be so averse to presenting him as the man of color he most assuredly was
From “White Whine: Reflections on the Brain-Rotting Properties of Privilege” by Tim Wise. Cursty: Newspaper Rock .
I thought everyone knew that Jesus looked just like like Graham Chapman…
I just saw a trailer for a new version of the nativity story coming out for Christmas. I have no idea who made the movie, who’s promoting it, or what angle it’s going to take on the whole thing, but I was pleased to see that at LEAST they made Mary and Joseph brown-skinned, and had them speak with a vague middle eastern accent. They looked like pale-ish North Africans or darker “middle eastern”. The schools I went to in the UK would often pick a Persian or Iranian kid to portray Joseph or Mary, a nod realistic portrayal while still being as caucasian as possible.
Jesus almost certainly didn’t look German, like so many of the European artists portrayed him.
But I’d be leary of using the “only physical description” we have; that description comes from Revelation, which is a prophetic book, and doesn’t seem intended as a physical description. Here it is in context: Rev. 1: 12-16
And my memory of geography is that the “Middle East” is in primarily in Asia, with only a little bit in North Africa.
What Sam said. The description in Revelations is fanciful and prophetic, not descriptive. (Pretty sure the J-man didn’t walk around Galilee holding stars in his hand and with a sword sticking out of his mouth. It would have attracted comment.)
That said, it’s obvious he wasn’t white. It’s possible that he looked something like Jim Cavaziel, and it’s possible that he looked something like Will Smith. The correct answer is indeed, of course, it doesn’t matter what he looked like – in fact, he tells us himself that he doesn’t look like much and nobody would be impressed from just seeing him.
And THAT said, it’s silly to view the depiction of Christ as white as being the by-product of privilege. Black churches tend to depict a black Christ. Indian churches tend to depict an Indian Christ. And so on. There are some historical impositions of whiteness, as in missionary contexts (although even there your smart missionary talks about a Jesus who is akin to the proselytes), but we generally find that as soon as a particular group of people has their own church and control over their own iconography, they show a Jesus who “looks like them”.
We do the same thing with Santa Claus, probably for similar reasons.
Robert makes a good point, since Jesus is supposed to be someone relateable. But what really bothers me are instances like Mel Gibson’s film which defends every controversial decision with “historical accuracy.” I think there may be a difference in depicting Jesus and white, and refusing to acknowledge he wasn’t.
Robert said, “And THAT said, it’s silly to view the depiction of Christ as white as being the by-product of privilege. Black churches tend to depict a black Christ. Indian churches tend to depict an Indian Christ. And so on.”
Hey Robert, when was the last time you went to a black church? And, have you been to a good sample of black churches?
The couple of black churches I have been to have the same damn white Jesus picture as the white ones.
Ha! Over breakfast with my father a few days ago he randomly said:
“Why do people persist in believing that Jesus looked like an Anglo-Saxon hippy?”
My reply:
“Considering the war on terror, do you think people are going to go for the idea of Jesus looking like he’s from the Middle East?”
I can tell you that the Coptic people in Egypt have lots of icons and religious art that all show Jesus as being really, really white. Unmistakeably so. I think it is not about just picturing Jesus as being one of you. It is about picturing him as white whether you are or not.
Robert, you are completely wrong. I have been in a lot of churches in my time and I have always seen a white Jesus in the black churches. In fact, if you dare to point out to the black congregation that they are praying to a white Jesus and perhaps they should get a black statue or portrait instead they will tell you that Jesus color doesn’t matter. I have seen this scenario play out time and time again.
The black churches with a Jesus depicted as a person-of-color are few and far between. ( I’ve never been in a church that was majority black and seen a black Jesus although I have seen “artistic” portraits of a black Jesus wearing locks in people’s homes. )
The image of the white Jesus has been used to subdue blacks since the time of slavery and with great effect since then. You want to keep a black Christian slave submissive to his white slaveowner? Simple. After you whip him ( or even as you whip him) bring out ( or bring up) the image of the white Jesus. How can a slave contemplate rebelling against the slaveowner who just happens to have an uncanny resemblance to the deity that he worships every night?
All these portraits of a white Jesus in black churchs are not coincidental.
I’ll bow to your superior experience, SBW and Rachel. My knowledge of the black church in the US is pretty spotty. I do interact with a fair sample of the black church in Africa and they go with a black Jesus iconography there, so I made an assumption.
I went to catholic schools staffed by hippie, post-vatican II, folk mass having catholics, so I’m perfectly comfortable imagining jesus as a soft spoken, slightly stoned, carpenterish white dude with long hair that reeks of patchouli. When he is holding that is, like, my favorite kind of white man!
Whoa Robert, I’m not sure which churches inthe “country Africa” (yes, it’s a pet peeve) you’ve been to, but I was born and raised in Nigeria, traveled most of West Africa and I’ve worked in Kenya and Tanzania and ALL the churches I’ve been to have a white Jesus or no image at all. A good number of the religious Christian folks I know in these countries have the picture of a white Jesus with the sacred heart.
I know it’s mostly anecdotal evidence, but I’ve still to find a a black Jesus in my travel across countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
As far as I know, Jewish people from that region WERE light-skinned. They certainly weren’t black.
Not that the Shroud of Turin is necessarily “real”, but that image could very well fit in with the people in the region. That’s a white person in the image, not a black person.
Gotta love this bit
And by “light-skinned”, you mean ? ? ?
And this is just too funny
And the color of the person’s skin was discerned from the shroud how???
Isn’t funny, that even if there is no credible supporting evidence, there’s alway someone willing to argue that Jesus was definitely not black???
Too funny, just too funny….
Have you ever seen an albino black person? You can still clearly see that the person is “black” even if she has white skin.
By “light-skinned” I mean: Light-skinned. Not black. Not African-based, which is black.
Notwithstanding your hilarity, which is not too well thought out, I think that people can also recognize “race” (European or African) from an inverse photo, or an albino black, or a white person with black tint smeared on … or a number of other situations.
Once you read what I say, you may get it, although your ego may prevent you from acknowledging what I am talking about.
“Too funny, just too funny….”
Hahahahahahah.
OK, now think.
Sewere,
My Nigerian husband said the same thing to me today when I asked him about this subject.
Yes, I agree. If your Nigerian husband said it, it’s probably true.
“they wouldn’t be so averse to presenting him as the man of color he most assuredly was”
Assuming he existed in the first place, a small fact that has yet to be proven. The first version of the new testament appeared 500 years (or so) after the fact. That is more than enough time for a “biography” to degenerate into myth.
OK. Obviously my personal sample is non-representative. Never mind, then. :)
JG has been taking the conversation away from what I’d like the discussions on “Alas” to be, and has thus been banned.
JG, please don’t post on this blog anymore. Thank you.
The first version of the new testament appeared 500 years (or so) after the fact.
That’s the approximate date range of the first canonical New Testament, meaning the first set of books officially stamped “true” by the church. That’s not the same thing as the first existing written testimony of Christ. Scholars noncontroversially date that to the 1st century AD; Christian scholars think the texts are a bit earlier than do secular ones, but even the secular figure for the Gospel of Mark (the earliest) is 68 to 73 AD.
So, since your argument that the representation of Jesus as white had nothing to do with privelege was based on the idea that he was represented as the same color of whatever congregation happened to be worshipping — and you’ve admitted the latter probably isn’t true — are you willing to admit that the representation of Jesus as white might have something to do with privelege?
Sure.
Jesus probably was “a man of color”, but that doesn’t mean that Jesus was black, expect by any other standard than non-white=black, or “one-drop rule” of sorts.
On the opposite of spectrum, why is it so important that Jesus definitely was not white, or that Jesus was black?
Or actually, I don’t know whether Jesus was a man of color, so probably should read “may have been”.
I actually agree with the premise of the quote’s author. We depict Jesus as very white almost always, and I’m sure it’s for the main part it’s for the reason that the author stated.
But it’d be a better argument if the author was a bit more factual.
The _only_ description in the new testament is in Revelations, which as the problem of being a fanciful vision, not a description. But even more…
“like a son of man,” dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in the furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all of its brilliance.”
ah.. it says WHITE as wool. I would never use that as ‘evidence’ that he was white (it’s a fanciful vision), but not sure how that is used to say he wasn’t. Of course I’ve heard that it argues that he was albino, and my good friend argues he was an albino African.
All good and well, except if I used occum’s razor and had two choices: He was an albino sub-Saharan African or he looked like the people of the region today (and from what we know of 2000 years ago), I’ll take the latter.
Also, technically and culturally, I wouldn’t put the region from Sinai to Turkey into “Africa” either technically (geographically), or culturally.
Again, I agree with the point he’s making, just think his points of ‘fact’ are a bit lacking.
Thanks for the link to Blue Corn Comics. For more on the subject of “Why do we think Christ was white?” see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1244037.stm.
Toumas
That wasn’t my point. It isn’t about whether Jesus was black or white, the issue is the uproar that ensues when someone suggests that he was black and others interject with no evidence or flimsy evidence (Shroud of Turin). The assumption that there are specific physical characteristics that can be visually identified relies heavily on a white-centric and racialized view of history. All of this flies in the face of the context in which the person who is viewing (and describing) comes from, and the reality that people of a particular race CAN and DO have varying hues and physical features. Case in point: My mother is black-Nigerian, has a lighter hue and straight hair while I, (both parents are black-Nigerian) have darker skin and thick curly hair. Let’s not even talk about how different I look from my Ethiopian cousins.
For the record, I really do not care about what Jesus looks like, it’s just plain dishonest (not to talk about annoyingly insulting) to assume that the construction of his image isn’t racialized to favor a white-centric view.
The Church has always been preaching racial righteousness to African people. Too bad Africans couldn’t match their guns. It goes beyond the way Jesus is portrayed. Wearing European clothes, naming your child some Christian name like Dean or Corey (sarcasm) and learning to put your traditional clothes away was the path to God we were taught. Islam is growing in Africa for this very reason. At the end of the day, the white man’s god is himself. Christianity is only a tool to keep African people foolish and full of self-hatred.
I’ve got a question…do you think of Arabs as “people of color” ?