Talk:Race and appearance of Jesus

Billy Graham

Billy Graham gave a sermon back in the 70's stating that Jesus was neither white nor black, but that he was brown. He was referring to Jesus's skin color, not his race. Skin color does not define a person's race. There are varying skin complexions within all the human races. Anthropologists and the U.S. Census Bureau classify Middle Eastern people as white/caucasian despite their skin complexion. Jesus was an olive-skinned caucasian. He did not look Northern European, neither did he look sub-saharan African. He was Mediterraneanen in appearance. He looked like what a modern day Palestinian looks like. This should not even be a debate. There is no controversy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.20.224 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the historical reconstruction of Jesus at the top?

Why has it been replaced by a european depiction of Jesus? Seems fairly POV to push a european/white Jesus over a historical reconstruction. ScienceApe (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what the "historical reconstruction" of Jesus is. Is there one? The article goes to great length to clarify that there is absolutely no scholarly agreement on what Jesus looked like, etc. and that all depictions ranging from European to Chinese to Ethiopian have been influenced by cultural issues. The European depiction happens to have occurred in more paintings because of cultural settings, as the article states, not due to any scholarly or historical basis. There is no historical basis for an agreement among scholars of what Jesus looked like. The article makes that plenty clear. History2007 (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick search on google images, and this is the image I remember, http://zoecarnate.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/historical-jesus1.jpg

I don't know if it was removed for copyright issues or not, but if there are no legal issues, it should be placed at the top. I don't think prevalence of a particular depiction is a valid rationale for what should be placed at the top. It's just pushing what most people want to see, that's POV pushing. ScienceApe (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that image from the TV program. That was discussed on talk at length. That was not created based on any scholarly agreement, but was part of this TV series which has its own page. The TV series is mentioned in the article, and is qualified with various statements. That program was labelled as highly controversial by mainstream newspapers, etc. And please do stop this POV pushing claims etc. right off the bat. The article goes to great length to clarify that there is no agreed upon scientific/historical depiction of Jesus at all - and hence the article pushes no point of view on what he looked like, clarifying that all depictions have cultural elements built into them that are far removed from scientific validation. History2007 (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is what the article should do. There is no agreed historical reconstruction and we shouldn't have an image of one. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing scholars agree on is: "we do not know what he looked like". History2007 (talk) 07:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a POV issue with having a European depiction at the top. I'm not contesting any of the written content in the article so it would be nice if you would stop bringing that up, it's an issue of what image is displayed at the top. Like I said before, if the image I linked to is not appropriate here, then we can leave the article with no image displayed at the top, and move the european depiction to the bottom. ScienceApe (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

So, you have now abandoned the TV image issue. That is progress. Now you are suggesting that an article on race and appearance should have no leading image... That is a new one. The leading image is one of the oldest images that typifies the most frequent depiction, and is explained as such in the caption, and it specifically also mentions that there are also Chinese depictions etc. I think you already know that the handwriting is on the wall that the line of reasoning you started here will not complete. History2007 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what I think? I think you want a white depiction of jesus at the top. I already said that it's a POV issue, and your rationale for keeping the white jesus has absolutely nothing to do with that. ScienceApe (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, your mind reading attempt failed. If there is any other depiction, similar accusations could have been produced. And by the way, the TV image you were proposing would have been similar in that regard. So your mind reading did not work. Now if you look at the article on Impressionism, it has a Monet at the top. But why should there be a Monet and not a Cezanne? Or why not a Sisley? That could have been discussed and would the outcome be not to have any paintings in that article? No. A Monet is just one representation, and a well known one. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

The article on Impressionism shouldn't have a Cezanne because he was a Post-Impressionist. Articles should have a lead image. In this case it would be impossible to have one that is 'accurate' (short of the invention of a time machine) , so an image representing the most familiar 'Jesus look' is probably best. Paul B (talk) 08:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about this article. As an aside, in the early 1870's he did wear an impressionist hat, but you are right that he is mostly known as a post. But that is not important here. Now, about the time machine... History2007 (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

No because it's a point of view issue. Articles should have a lead image, but not at the cost of neutrality. Bringing up other articles is not valid rationale, there could in fact be a POV issue on other wikipedia articles, but we're only here to discuss the POV issues in regards to this article. ScienceApe (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As above, I do not agree with you. And comparison with other articles is not forbidden. Your argument does not seem logical to me. I agree with Paul B. History2007 (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a suitable compromise here would be for the lead image to be a montage of, say, four different racial depictions of Christ, as in, for example, the Shakespeare authorship question article. This would better reflect the article's stance that there is no uniformly accepted theory. Examples of images that could feature in the composite would be, for instance, the current image, this one, this one and this one. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

When I was growing up, I had always had the dream of spending my life doing that type of thing and partaking in this type of discussion... In the end, all of this will make less than 0.0000001% difference to the encyclopedia. I don't know why ScinceApe is pushing this for this long. Now, why does the Shakespeare page have a single image? History2007 (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There are copyright issues, but let's face it, the chances that Jesus looked Chinese or like a sub-Saharan African are pretty remote. I don't think it's reasonable to have a montage in which very very marginal representations are given promenence. We have to give weight to the dominant tradition, one that emeges from the Roman empire into which Jesus was in fact born. Paul B (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Reasonable and logical, again. Now, it seems that there is no consensus to follow Science Ape's suggestion. So that may be the conclusion in fact. History2007 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But that's not what the article argues, and this is sort of my point. It may well be the case that the chances of Jesus having appeared Asian or black are pretty remote, but the "Emergence of racial theories" section cites several scholars who, between them, state that he could have been Aryan, black or Indian. So it's incongruous to the rest of the article that the lead image shows simply a depiction of a white Jesus. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The article clearly states that there is no scholarly agreement on what Jesus looked like. And the caption states (as in the Shakespeare page) that it is showing a common depiction, not the only one. So Paul B was arguing the issue of commonality (hence WP:Due), not certainty. History2007 (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

He could conceivably have been anything. Maybe a Comanche warrior made it over to Galilee. Indeed from an orthodox Christian POV, he was born as a result of a miracle, his father being God. So should one assume he would partake of the "race and appearance" of God? Alternatively, maybe God chose to be incarnated looking like Confucius, Paul Robeson or Arnold Schwarznegger, and who would be able to stop him? All these things are possible, but they are utterly marginal within the existing visual and cultural traditions, whether we take the most commonly argued theological views or the secular position that Jesus was an ordinary human. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we all agree on the lack of scholarly agreement. And again, the caption makes it clear (as in the Shakespeare page) that this is a common (in this case ancient) artistic depiction and not a specific hands-on portrait of any type. That is all. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But if the views that Jesus was Aryan, black or Indian are marginal, as you say Paul, then the article could do with a restructure to reflect this. The paragraph in the racial theories section that cites proponents of a black Jesus is the largest one and is accompanied by a painting by Henry Tanner; the paragraph arguing for an Aryan race is the second-largest. Anyway, this is off the point of which image, if any, should be featured in the lead. I think I've changed my mind anyway. Thanks for the discussion, Paul. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It so happens that I was in at the beginning of this article. It started with the whole 'black jesus' concept, which is, needless to say, a product of US race-politics and has nothing to do with actual scholarship, secular or Christian. There was a lot of stuff about him having 'hair like wool' (a reference to a passage in the book of revelation), which seems to be an internet meme. Actually, I wouldn't say he's 'black' in the Tanner, pic (his face is in shadow). It's more a typical attempt to portray him as Semitic-looking, according to the assumptions of the time about that. But it would be useful to look at sources on Tanner. The black and Aryan section are probably longest because they are the ones that get most attention. BTW, "Aryan" is strictly an ethno-linguistic concept, not a racial one as such. I think there should be more on the descriptions - the fake ancient descriptions were at least influential. And why has Celsus' physical description beeen deleted, and largely irrelevant stuff about Pantera been added? Paul B (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'hair like wool' item is not a lifetime description, and is explained as such in the Biblical references section. It is a heavenly glorified image described by John who had presumably also seen Jesus alive on earth, and is a purely theological item. I think the Pantera item can go away. History2007 (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, I do know that. In fact it's not even stated to be "Jesus" as such, but rather the "Son of Man". However, the fact is that it was used to make these claims. Whether the author of Revelation was john the apostle or not is of course debated. The Celsus description, brief though it is, is of the physical Jesus, who, of course, he did not believe to be divine. And Origen does not challenge it. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually neither Celsus, nor Origen had seen Jesus. And divinity probably nothing to do with his earthly height/weight/etc. In any case, all of these would need to be WP:Secondary based, not based on discussion between us. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course they hadn't. That's not the point. I'd better clarify - he does not challenge the 'ugly' bit, but he does say there's no evidence for the 'short' bit. The arguments he uses appears to be purely theological, from Isaiah, not based on claims about some recorded information or oral tradition of Jesus' appearance. He also seems to assume that Celsus is also basing his claims on Isaiah. But of course we don't know that. The point is that he makes a claim about what Jesus looked like. This is sufficiently close in time to Jesus that there may have been a continuing oral tradition. Alternately, he may simply be reporting on Christian debates about whether Isaiah or Psalms should be used as a guide to his appearance. We can use primary sources to report their content, but in any case I've already souerced the passage to Van Voorst. Paul B (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not remember all of the details now. But I think you should add that did not challenge short, etc. And mention Isaiah clarifying that these were theological arguments, not based on old photographs. I have not seen a source about the oral tradition, however. History2007 (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to comment on what Paul B said, "the chances that Jesus looked Chinese or like a sub-Saharan African are pretty remote.", that's the biased POV I was talking about. Where's the evidence that Jesus was white European like the lead image implies? He wasn't from Europe. The lead image gives unfair weight to that particular depiction. I'm in favor for either no image or a composite image of several different depictions. ScienceApe (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me break the news to you gently here now: the POV mantra wears thin after you keep applying it to everything that does not fit WP:JDLI. This discussion started because you wanted something else. When that did not fly, your position changed and the POV mantra became the substitute. Please do give us a break here. We are actually discussing incidental items such as scholarly sources now. History2007 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a "biased point of view"; it's common sense. Why would someone from Galilee look like someone from somewhere else completely? Also, why do you assume that the image is of a "European"? What exactly do you think people of the middle east look like? This is by far the most common form of image of Jesus, with a very very long provenance. Paul B (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:JDLI is at times abbreviated as POV. That has happened a few times in other articles by other editors... You may even remember a few of them... I think you know who I mean. History2007 (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it does say right there in the caption that the image is a "typical European depiction of Jesus". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

History, what you're doing here is basically trying to attack me, these are nothing more than ad hominem attacks. I do believe that you are biased in favor for a white Jesus despite what you claim, and all of your arguments are biased in favor for the current image because of that. The fact that none of your arguments have anything to do with neutrality indicates that. Paul B, I think your common sense argument works against you. Why would someone from Galilee look like they are from Europe? And yes, the image is a European depiction of Jesus as A Thousand Doors has said. I'm not necessarily saying a composite image is desirable, I'm just saying it's neutral. I want something that is both neutral, and appropriate at the top. If we can not find an image that satisfies both of those criteria then there should not be a lead image. ScienceApe (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, please- you start by calling other people biased, then say you are getting criticized. That is a new one. And all of this discussion on and one without a single encyclopedic item getting discussed. Way to go... Way to go... This POV image mantra business is not helping develop encyclopedic content. That is for sure. One can repeat that mantra on every page, say Modernism and say it is biased towards Hofmann. Or Expressionism and say it is biased towards Munch, etc. etc. etc. Go and delete all of those images first, then resume. As as aside, the Munch image on the Expressionism page may be an apt way of representing this discussion... In the time I have spent here, I could have written a whole new article and done something useful... History2007 (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Jewish culture did not typically support portrait painting, so we don't have many portraits from the period of people from Judea and Galilee. However we have ancient Egyptian images of people from the area, who are typically portrayed as pale-skinned with dark hair, pretty much normal for Mediterranean people (see Book of Gates). We also have a large number of Fayum mummy portraits from northern Egypt at this time, which are generally considered to be as naturalistic as ancient art gets. There are some surviving statues and coins which are consistent with this, and which fit the general 'look' of the populations in the area today. The problem is that you have constructed a one-size-fits-all idea that there is a "European" look and a "non-European" look. It would be truer to say that there is a "Mediterranean" look which is common around the coast, with local variations. Northern Europeans look distinctively different and so do people to the East, increasingly as Iran gives way to Pakistan and India. So do people to the south, as the Sudan extends to sub-Saharan Africa. Whichever way you go - North, East or South, the phenotype starts to change. The distinction between 'Europe' and 'non-Europe' is totally artificial. The Greeks were a lot nearer to Galilee than to Norway, culturally as well as geographically. The painting is from what we call "Europe", but the look of the face is typically Mediterranean, a type which is not restricted to Europe at all. The same type of image is used in Syria, Egypt and other areas, so are they "European"? Paul B (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

A logical set of statements in fact... Now, amid all his Munch-themed discussion, however, there is a one item to smile about: namely that Greeks may not really fit the term European: I think we could get Tsipras to agree to that these days... Even Merkel may agree to that soon... kidding. History2007 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But what about, say, the Dura-Europos synagogue? The wall paintings there date from around the 3rd century, and generally depict individuals with darker skin tones. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs)

If you think the Dura-Europas figures are dark skinned, all I can say is that you appear to have different eyesight from mine. Darker than what? Paul B (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A real exception for a synagogue to have images. Most Jewish teachings interpret the Second Commandment as against the use of "graven images" as visual art. History2007 (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul everything you're saying is original research. You're trying to rationalize the image to fit what you think Jesus probably looked like. Whether you think that image looks Mediterranean and thus kinda like how Jesus may have looked like is completely irrelevant here. We know the origin of that painting is Europe, and that's the only objective thing we can say about it. That is the issue at hand here, and it's a neutrality violation since there is no consensus on how Jesus looked, or what his race was. The picture is perfectly fine to include in the article, it just shouldn't be at the top. ScienceApe (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no rule against original research on the talk page, and in any case it was not original research. NOTHING I said is remotely original research at all. It is standard stuff in the history of art for this period. The can be no "neutality" violation because this is the standard image type. I'm not defending this particular image but I do believe we should lead with this type. To have a monatage - especially with the proposed caption - would imply that there is genuinely some "scholarly" debate that Jesus may have looked Chinese or Sub-Saharan. There is no such debate. There are fringe theories. There is US Afrocentrist ideology and there is debate about aesthetic coinventions. But there is no live scholarly debate about what "race" Jesus was: not that I know of. Show me some evidence that there is. Paul B (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the trend now: You are now ok with the img, but not at the top. And how did you determine that "we know the origin of that painting is Europe" now? Does we include yous truly? That would have been news to your truly. That is a pre-iconoclast depiction, and of great artistic value, but as to where it came from, please do educate us here now... And I said this before, now let me say it again: one can repeat that POV mantra on 10,000 pages, say Modernism and say it is biased towards Hofmann. Or Expressionism and say it is biased towards Munch, etc. etc. ... etc. I suggest you delete all of those leading images first, then resume. History2007 (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't really matter where it's from. It's inappropriate to be at the top for the same reason why it's inappropriate for a black or asian depiction of jesus to be at the top. It's pushing one perception of his appearance over another. Can you please drop your snarky attitude? I always said the image should be moved to the bottom, I never said it should be removed entirely. History, those are not valid arguments. This article is supposed to be about the factual information regarding what jesus looked like, and putting that image at the top, implicitly pushes that appearance. If we were to compare this article to say, Depiction of Jesus, I actually have no problem with that very same depiction being at the top because then rationale such as "it's the most common, and earliest depiction of jesus" are completely valid in regards to that article. They are not valid here though because this article is not about depictions, it's about what jesus looked like, and we can't push one view over another. ScienceApe (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, as I said that argument is not valid, because it could have applied to 10,000 pages e.g. Modernism, Expressionism, etc. You have not addressed that issue. Anyway, it seems that you now realize that the selection of that image was not haphazard: it is a well known ancient depiction as evidenced by its use at the start of the Depictions of Jesus page. By the way, does the uppercase key work on your keyboard? In particular uppercase "J" seems not to appear in what you type... History2007 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is a pretty invalid argument as well, of course. Every article is unique, and what might be appropriate in one Wikipedia article (or even 10,000), may not necessarily be appropriate in another. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:OSE is an essay and not a guideline to be used for anything. In general, however, there are norms in Wikipedia, e.g. most pages having a leading image, etc. Comparisons are not forbidden by any measure. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Things that most definitely are guidelines however are WP:Consensus (in particular how consensus can change), and WP:Civility. Personally, I would be interested in having a respectful, considerate discussion on whether having a lead image in the Race and appearance of Jesus article is appropriate, and, if so, which one should be used. Is that something that in which you would be interested in partaking, History2007? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I must say I am beginning to question my own sanity for spending time on this. There is no consensus here, of course. By the way WP:CON is a policy, above guidelines. Now, in the interest of sanity why not try another artistic image? I can go along with that if it is a high quality item by one of the masters. Suggestions? And let us see what Paul says. History2007 (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A 4th century, bearded depiction of Jesus (center), Catacombs of Rome.

In fact, one could try one that is so small that does not show anything, so there is no future debate, say the one here that does not show skin color or anything, but can act as an image at the top anyway. And the caption would be "Bearded Jesus at the center, Catacombs of, Rome, second half of 4th century." That's all. History2007 (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

My thinking is that both the lead and its image needs to summarise and reflect the rest of the article. This article could be greatest piece of literature of all time, but, unfortunately, the average Wikipedia user is probably still going to read nothing more than the lead and the image captions. In fact, my concern is that a significant proportion of readers will open this page, look at the opening picture, and then view nothing more. The article repeatedly mentions that there is no agreement among scholars on what the race of Jesus would have been, so I feel that a composite image of the most popular scholarly theories would best serve our readers. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The composite image will be "our own rendering" and WP:OR. And I assure you that I am no Picasso anyway. But if we attempt to build our own composite that is the WP:OR of WP:OR. So I could not agree to that. But if the image is small enough not to suggest anything, the page does not look empty, but no specific impression is given. That was why I suggested the small image, which I have now posted here as an example. I say let us just use a vague image and get on with our lives. The composite will be self-created WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no general scholarly agreement on what race Jesus would have been. Since early Christianity, several theories have been presented, including proposals that he was European, black African or Indian.

Composite images and montages are generally not forbidden on Wikipedia, and many articles (maybe even as many as 10,000!) make use of them. See, for example, the lead image in Art. Similarly, original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. The montage that I have crudely thrown together does not introduce any ideas or arguments that are not already presented in the text of the article itself – the caption is basically copy-pasted from the lead. I believe that a montage showing various depictions of the race of Jesus would better illustrate the article than a single image. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I could give you 50 ways to leave that montage, but I will not bother. You are going to spend the rest of this decade defending that against IPs anyway, and other users (myself included) who think it has this, that and the other wrong with it. The determination that it is "representative" is yours alone, not mine. So no agreement on that. I think the best way is to have an image that is vague/small enough not to suggest anything. History2007 (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No image at all would be preferable to one that is vague and small. Shall we just compromise on that? Incidentally, I was in no way suggesting that the montage that I quickly threw together was the finished product and should be immediately added to the article. I just wanted to give an impression of the sort of image that I was describing. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No image is not a compromise. I want the image there is now, you montage or none. The compromise is a small image. History2007 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I want no image as much as you want the small image. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A composite image should not create the spurious impression that there is some sort of debater that Jesus may have looked like one or other of these various pictures. I'm in favour of an image of the standard model with a caption. Otyherwise, I'd prefer a composite that does not make the spurious claim that there is some equivalence between a Mediterranean Jesus and a Chinese Jesus. It's interestin that the Nordic Jesus is wholly absent from the composite - implictily associating the Med look with a generic "European" identity. Paul B (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Which images would you hypothetically prefer to be used? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

What Paul said is interesting. The fact is that when doing these composites the subconscious kicks in ever so gently and directs things before one knows what happened. Now, "in the name of sanity" the way out of this may be to combine "small" and "composite" and achieve the result through dilution and diversification, e.g. as in Armenians but only 12 of them, and smaller than those so none is suggestive of any specifics. But they should all be high quality items, by well known people, and/or of historical value. History2007 (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

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

That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Twelve might be a few too many though – how about eight? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

What do you expect? Reasonable is my middle name. But I was being even conservative with 12. Anything below that is really not diluted enough. History2007 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Which images would you want to use? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I will think about it in a day or so. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I added a gallery of 12. Some of them (e.g. the Tanner) need to have the face cropped, but they are pretty diverse now. History2007 (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me, nice going. Agree that the faces could do with being cropped in places. What would the caption say? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Caption could be: "Over the centuries, Jesus has been depicted in a multitude of ways, yet there is no scholarly agreement even on his approximate appearance". Do you have a program that can crop the faces? Your help there will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really, I'm afraid. The image above I basically threw together pretty quickly in MS Paint – the Graphic Lab would probably be able to offer more professional-looking edits. I like the caption, although I wonder whether it might be worth reversing its structure, e.g. to something like, say, "There is no scholarly agreement on the race and appearance of Jesus; over the centuries, they have been depicted in various ways." Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 01:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem with your rewording of the caption. Let us go with that. Give me a day or two and I will crop the images. History2007 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I managed to crop them just with MS-paintbrush. One of them was too recent, so I just used an older one. History2007 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it! Looks good, nice job! The only thing I would say is that I think that, grammatically-speaking, that "yet" could be omitted. Other that, I reckon that that would be a useful addition to the article. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will delete the yet and use it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you want History, what matters is what is appropriate for this article. To take your own link, it seems your argument is Wikipedia:I just don't like it. I think A Thousand Doors brought up an excellent point. There is no agreement on what jesus looked like, so why are we trying to show a lead image that shows what he looks like? ScienceApe (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I know, I know. But anyway, by the token, the composite shows something, unless it is pretty small, as discussed above. Anyway, we are discussing above here now. History2007 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Middle Eastern Jesus

• This has been asked before, but what exactly is the source for the Tanner image showing a "black" Jesus? If there is none, the caption should be changed. A much less ambiguous image would be The Shadow of Death by William Holman Hunt, which was painted in the Holy Land, inspired by locals and their dress. FunkMonk (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Totally Irrelevant

It appears to me the big problem with all this race stuff is immaculate conception. According to belief, Jesus was created without a second set of DNA (from a father fertilizing the ova). Since Jesus was a one-parent creation he couldn't have had a terrestrial father.

No one knows what happened to when God fertilized the egg. Jesus could've been purple with vertical stripes for all we know. When you have a Caucasian mother and a negro father, you end up with a mixed race child. Any assumption of what Jesus looked like is just that..assumption because you are missing one-half the puzzle. (cmt by IP 71.48.206.206 )

Well, I hope you know your biology better than your theology; for Immaculate conception is about the conception of Mary, well over a decade before the birth of Jesus. And in any case, the historical/scientific perspective does not accept the Holy Spirit (or other supernatural events) and in the Jewish perspective biologically speaking, Jesus was just a regular person, so your comment is beside the point. History2007 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, s/he got the meaning of "immaculate conception" wrong. It's a common mistake. But the central point is valid, despite the fact that the OP seems to imply that Jesus is obviously and undeniably the son of God. The theological perspective does throw a spanner in the racial works, and that is a cryucial aspect of the history commentary on the 'race' and 'look' opf Jesus, in speculation by theologians and in artistic depictions. It's surely not irrelevant. It's just as relevant as the theorising by 19th century race ideologues and people who think his mam had an affair with a Roman soldier. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We know the "Ethnicity" of Jesus

According to the genealogy, Jesus was a Jew/Judean of Davidic royal descent (at least through Mary), David is described as dark-haired but fair-"ruddy" in skin tone in the Old Testament inarguably -- this is PC madness!

The article states "beyond Jewish", we know nothing. How utterly idiotic.

Jewish tells us tons of data anthropologically!

Ancient and modern Hebrews, anthropologically, belong to the present Cro-Magnon descended -- hominization is an interrelated theological concept...) human race; the Hebraic Judahites ethnologically are a composite of different WEST ASIAN CAUCASOID sub-races (whatever the labels, Armenoid, whatever! etc.), and Hebrew genetic background is all of WEST ASIAN, CAUCASOID stock (West Asian Caucasoid is how Jesus was portrayed from the beginning -- not "Aryan" or "African" -- but as a Semitic Middle Easterner with Davidic/"fairish" features...!), and suppressing this simple basic reality is more than hysterically politically correct, but simply sickening... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Jesus was Jewish

Can anyone please tell me how we know that Jesus's mother was Jewish? I do not think we know this from the new Testament, do we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.132.99 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Inferentially, Mary was a scion of royal Davidic blood, pure regal stock -- likewise putative father Joseph.

Are we arguing over whether "Jewish" can include Amorite or Hittite blood...? Anthropologically, sure: the Jews are a dynamic synthesis of various sub-races -- all of the most modern, "gracile" HOMO S. variety -- of the Western Asian Caucasian race. Skeletons do not "lie"...

According to accepted textual sources, Mary descended from 14 Jewish Patriarchs, 14 Jewish kings, and 14 Jewish princes.

Mosaic Judaic law prohibited any virgin, in its accentuation upon total endogamy, particularly a Jewish female virgin capable of inheritance, from accepting a husband outside her own tribe (Num. 36. ff.)... Facts fall into place here...

Mary and Joseph were logically of the same "distraught nobility" tribe and family...

NT affirms the above, patently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please tell more about the "accepted textual sources"? Can you give me references, preferably from the New Testament? (What you say about facts fall into place, I have no doubt that Joseph was Jewish, two Gospels describe it clearly. So if Mary was Jewis, accepting Joseph as husband makes perfect sense, however if Mary was non-Jewish, she still could decide to marry Joseph. In my opinion facts do not fall into place this way.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.132.99 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. St. Matthew, first chapter. St. Luke, third chapter. Cross-reference. Superabundance of genealogical information everywhere...

I am sorry but both Gospels explicitly state that the description they give is about Joseph. I am looking for information about Mary. Joseph does not matter in this question because Joseph is not the father (as long as we accept that the New Testament is true, Jesus was an existing person etc.)

Archaic Israelites and "Judahites"/"Jews" were scrupulously kinship-minded, ethnically aware, according to Mosaic separatist mandate and spirit: botched mamzer ancestry in Jesus would delegitimize his status as messianic incarnation: logically, any "foreign" ancestry in either Joseph or Mary would be theologically unthinkable to the New Testament authors.

This is a strange argument for proving that Mary was Jewish. I would like to add that Jesus was not accepted as Messiah amongst Jews, especially amongst Jewish Rabbis. I find this argument completely illogical. Moreover, this IS from the Gospels: "Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee." (John 7:52) Following your train of thoughts, Jesus should not have been from Nazareth. If God wanted to send a Messiah to the Jews, would he have sent him to Nazareth?

How do I create an account? Anyway: I no longer understand what you are trying to insinuate or argue, Sir. If we discount the New Testament texts skeptically, everything is topsy-turvy. I have no agenda and outright state, I am a Jewish-blooded, converted Christian of antiquarian, esoteric tendencies; furthermore, I do not accept rabbinical sources as pristine truth. If you are simply arguing the rabbinical position on Jesus, the pertinence to this article is not quite clear.

For Joseph to betroth/marry Mary, as said, for theologically-conscious Jewish-Christians, would imply of necessity their mutuality of blood in the messianic lineage as precondition of the soteriological rank of Jesus Christ, simultaneously divine and human, the Son of God as enfleshed Logos SIMULTANEOUSLY of the "House of David" -- prophetically absolutely unavoidable...

I am unsure what your reasoning is as to speculative alternative ethnicity for Mary -- what exactly makes you question or wonder agnostically about her New Testament-affirmed lineage?

I am curious about why you think that Mary was Jewish. People take it for granted, and I am curious why they do so. I found no such references in the Gospels, I wonder if others did. Apostle Paul states it a few times that Jesus was Jewish, but he did not even meet him, did not know his family (again: I am assuming that Apostle Paul existed). So simply, I just would like to know if I missed something. If I did not miss anything, I believe this Wikipedia article should include how we know that Jesus was Jewish, because if the Gospels do not state it then it is not an evident thing IMHO.

Anti-Christian Jews indeed cynically questioned primarily the Jewishness, not of either Mary or Joseph, or rather, rarely either Mary or Joseph, Joseph sparingly perhaps, but of Jesus: the polemical theory goes, Jesus was "Yeshua ben Pandera" (cryptonym), a half-Jewish "mongrel", due to the scandalously adulterous behavior of Mary. Cf. John 8:44, where Jesus calls intratribal opponents, figuratively, "Satan-spawn", as counter to their implicit but aggressive slur upon Mary and Jesus' ancestry in the chapter... His non-Jewishness was connected with a Roman soldier named (sardonically) "Pandera": rabbinically decrypted, the "doctrinal" aggression is quite intense here, "esoterically". Without sugarcoating the truly emotionally violent antipathy between the Jewish mainline and the Jewish-Christian "heresy", the mainline Jews suggested Jesus was a "betrayer of Sodomite nature" i.e. outcaste unnatural intermixture. He rationalized his hybridity by pretending to be of "divine seed" to mask the murky affair.

Is this the type of area of sources you are proceeding from in your cast of mind concerning Mary...?

Or...?

Why is my cast of mind important? This is an informational website which claims to be politically independent and claims to be evidence/reference based. I do not understand why we have personal questions when we discuss this matter! If I am Jewish or Chinese or American, Jesus, Mary, the devil or an alien, what difference does it make? I believe that based on the New Testament, Jesus never said about himself that he is Jewish. I believe in the Gospels he never confirms that he is Jewish. Moreover I believe that in the Gospels no Jewish Rabbi says that Jesus is Jewish. I wonder if I am wrong or right, so I am asking those people who believe that Jesus was Jewish, do you base your belief on what is in the Gospels (and then I must have missed something), or on something else? The reason is, of course, I believe this statement in the page should have references. I believe this fact is not obvious, unless Jesus says it in the Gospels, or unless we know from the Gospels that Mary was Jewish. Otherwise we can say e.g. Apostle Paul says Jesus is Jewish. And then it is up to the reader to believe this. Presenting this as if it was an obvious fact is misleading in my opinion.

Your cast of mind is important because as Nietzsche stated we are all-too-human and agendas of world-view often are masked and undergird arguments supposedly from "pure reason." Yet: I HOPE idealistically EVERY side can TRANSCEND personal ideology and simply aim for OBJECTIVITY instead of polemical partisanship disguised. I am not of hostile bent. I simply know the human mind.

I am honestly sort of bewildered you are immersed in such skepsis you are now questioning the Jewishness of Jesus. So what? Do we follow the Nazis and say he was an Indo-European Amorite?

Without the New Testament, I do not know what contributors expect as foundational in even conceptualizing Jesus.

I STILL am puzzled as to WHY this article pretends the Jewishness of Jesus is, in terms of "race and appearance", so minimally relevant as to be meaningless. YEAH RIGHT people... Western Asian Caucasoid phenotype is the clear reality here "outlawed", Sovietesque, laughably. Jewish pedigree means quite a lot, anthropologically, but who here in Wikipedia-land is not yoked to political correctness "sensitivities"? Disneyland-encyclopedia, so scholastically schizoid and cognitively dissonant... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 11:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's "outlawed" that we have quite a number of references to it. Explain what you think should be included. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir Barlow -- have I been granted the gift of enjoying your special guardianship? :) -- I believe we have a history. I hope your invitation to questing beyond PC conformism is sincere and not a tease...

Okay: firstly--the sentence supposedly pontifically, oh-so-imperiously summarizing the "race and appearance" of Jesus, in an ellipsis of phrasing emanating from either sheer mental voidness or mendacity, standing as, "nothing is agreed upon by respectable scholars about these aspects of Jesus Christ -- EXCEPT Jesus being Jewish"...and THEN...NOTHING -- this pseudo-conclusion must be intelligently revised sensitively. No meaning to Jewish? What?!

Jewish->Judean->Judahite->H. "Yehudah"->H. "Yisrael"->Hebrew, "Ibri"->Abraham, Abram->Haran->"Ur"/"Urartu", Talmud gives "ERECH"->historic Uruk/Ubaid period>Talmud gives Ara->Aratta/Eridu->"Eden"; thus, probably, ultimately intensively conglomerated ARMENO-IRANIAN archaeogenetic primal source: ANTHROPOLOGICALLY a matter of intense speculative inquiry -- I have sources if honesty is in the air.

For the moment omitting "Marian" DNA, Y-Haplogroup DNA (J2, E, G, R, a few rarities) verifies JEWISH = WESTERN-ASIAN CAUCASIAN (so-called "white") "race" -- no Mongoloid or Bushman bloodlines predominant in these parts, understating things. Reality: multilayered, Mesopotamian, paleo-Iranian identity of incredibly complex variety and depth. If you are serious, and no one is going to dualistically "blacklist" me as a "racist Nazi" (irony of ironies) -- I can discuss the ethnology, anthropology and "race" (let us find a better word...?) of Jesus, descendant of "fair" David, etc., quite vastly. But only if you, the Wikipedia editorial in-group collectively, are actually open-minded, serious and there is no gatekeeping storm-troops of THOUGHTBLOCK seeking my oblivion.

"Race and appearance" are superficial designates, truly. Ethnology, ethnography, paleo-anthropology, etc. -- better terms exist. Where do we begin, lest we seem "racist/racialist"?

I shall return if there is sincerity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir Barlow? No, that's formally inaccurate. It would be Sir Paul, though you could also call me Lord Barlow if I were a baronet. Either will do. I don't mind. Unfortunately I am still awaiting these honours to be bestowed upon me. As for this article, I still see no sign that you are proposing a specific edit. Are you the person who added a whole pile of stuff a while ago about Jesus's "ruddy" faced ancestors? That was all what we call WP:OR. See WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Jesus could be assumed to be Jewish, but this tells us little about his ancestors. A scientific article suggests that Jesus was a mamzer: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chilton_Mamzer_Jesus_Birth.htm . Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay: Jesus and mamzer. I know the Talmud and what it states, and Jewish folklore of aggressive nature in relation to Christians. But introducing inter-religious conflict into the article is not helpful -- I do not know what good it will do to absolutize the Talmudic line on Jesus... We can mention it, but the Talmud is NOT a wellspring of absolute detached epistemic truth with a capital T.

Okay, fellow, I am sorry to see from the above that the attitudinal atmosphere is so turgidly all-too-human and no one is honestly interested in this question. I am a polymath, and could have supplied tons of information, but I cannot exchange information and dialogue in an atmosphere of total hostility where any contribution of mine is precluded automatically.

I wish Wikipedia was more interested in supplying objective information than playing politics.

The whole "mamzer" issue I could discuss at length, but who is even interested in objectivity here?

I am partially Jewish and know all of these matters very very well, and the Talmudic sources I know almost by heart; likewise the "ethnographic" aspect. I am sad I could not share impersonal data due to all-too-human politics. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am still here if somehow we could get OBJECTIVE, IMPERSONAL editorial control of this article. I await OBJECTIVITY idealistically. Perhaps naively.

Editorial Objectivity Needed Here

I learned how to create an username/account on here and am willing to give Wikipedia a chance.

I am interested in how Wikipedia determines, or by what process, a "controversial" subject, such as we are dealing with here, becomes more stringent in pellucid objectivity, stark and crystalline...void of ideological battles and inter-religious polemics cryptically inserted... How do we make this article respectable, instead of an artifact of "political correctness"...?

Angelomorphic (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. You just sign with the four tildes. No need to actually write out your name too. It all appears as if by magic. Wikipedia policies are explainmed in WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, plus a bunch of other pages called WP this-and-that. Of course pages are in fact written by real people with various agendas, not by machines conforming to policies, so there will always be an element of competing POVs, as we say, on controversial topics. In that respect we can never achieve pellucid objectivity, stark, crystaline or any other kind. Inter-religious polemics should be part of the content, explained according to... WP:WEIGHT. Paul B (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

Most of the Churches of the Black Hebrews recognize Christ as a black African descendant although many consider him a prophet only. They promote the concept aggressively on YouTube, Facebook and even flyer campaigns in neighborhoods. Anyone have scholarly sources that have studied their cirrent campaign of promotion about Christ's appearance? 97.85.168.22 (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)