Talk:Race and appearance of Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cscr-former.svg Race and appearance of Jesus is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
December 28, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus / Catholicism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Low-importance).


The description below the top illustration for the page says this:

> There is no scholarly agreement on the appearance of Jesus; over the centuries, he has been depicted in a multitude of ways.

But the illustration shows 12 pictures of Jesus that all look pretty similar/identical. The face from the Henry Tanner painting is the only one that appears to depict a black Jesus. I don't doubt the description quoted above but perhaps it would be better to have a better illustration? Fragglet (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Justin Martyr and genealogy[edit]

It appears that this actually comes from "the virgin was of the race of David, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham", which is David Strauss's paraphrase of Justin Martyr. This seems to refer to genealogy but not in any way to appearance, and only in a very loose way to "race".

Here is a fuller translation of the passage in Justin Martyr, with an interpretation bit at the end:

"He therefore called Himself Son of man either from his birth through the Virgin (who was, as I have said, sprung from the race of David, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham), or because Abraham himself is the father also of those who have been enumerated, from whom Mary traces her descent; for also we know that the progenitors of female offspring are (considered) fathers of the children born to their daughters." Some have proposed to substitute "Adam" for "Abraham" but there is no authority for the change, and in any case there seems no doubt that Justin asserts (1) that Jesus caused Himself Son of man because He sprang from the Patriarchs through the Virgin, and (2) that in thus calling Himself Son of man. He "revealed" His descent to the disciples. [1]

--Pharos (talk) 06:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't see what difference between the orginal and the Strauss version you think is significant. The text only refers to it in a sentence. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think that Strauss significantly distorted the quote from Justin Martyr, just that the way this has been used in the article mistakenly implied the quote was about "race" in the modern sense, when it was mostly about proving Jesus being a literal descendant of King David, and so fulfilling Old Testament prophecies.--Pharos (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Santo Niño de Cebú[edit]


This article is well outside of topical areas where I usually edit, but I happened to be looking at it recently, and Santo Niño de Cebú came to mind. That article is about what is said to be the oldest religious image in the Philippines, said to have been brought by Ferdinand Magellan in 1521. It is a statue depicting Jesus as a young child with a distinctly olive complexion. I just thought I would mention it here in case it merits mention in the article. Also, the Black Madonna article might be not completely unrelated to this one. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Jewish Face[edit]

In the video "The Face of Jesus" [2] (taken from the TV series "Son of God") it is shown that Jewish skulls are much wider and much heavier that other skulls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears that the person saying this is Mordechai Aviam, and the claim is repeated in a slightly different form on the defunct BBC Son of God website. However, he's making a very broad and probably off-the-cuff remark, and it would be much better to see if there is a version of this that's citable to a scientific paper.--Pharos (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Galilean vs. Judean[edit]

In the video "The Man Who Saw Jesus" [3] (taken from the National Geographic series "Biblical Forensics") it is shown that Galilean people were dolichocephalic and Judean people were brachycephalic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The person speaking here is Israel Hershkovitz, and again, like in the above discussion, he's making a very broad and possibly off-the-cuff claim that if possible it would be better to have a scientific paper for. Perhaps we should have a section of the article on all these TV "forensic" reconstructions, which apparently go back to 1981, and have been criticized by Joe Zias in this Jerusalem Post article.--Pharos (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Remove copyvio link just added by IP. In any case, I agree we'd need a scientific study, this sounds extremely dubious. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)