Talk:Race and appearance of Jesus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The "feet of fine brass" line has also been used to argue for a black or Middle Eastern race

There's no such thing as a "Middle Eastern race". The term Middle East is an Euro-centric description of the world in proximity to the continent of Europe...as in Near East, Middle East and Far East. ---Rawoyster (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• Let's say ethnicity then. Funkynusayri (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "eurocentric" about the use of the term race. As for 'middle eastern', of course it defines cultures in relation to Europe. English is a European language. The point is that it is established usage in English. You seem to be confusing two separate issues here - the use of 'middle eastern' and the use of 'race'. The problem with 'ethnicity' is that it implies cultural identity - and no-one disputes that he had a middle eastern ethnicity. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• It's a bit problematic with this article, as it is called "race of Jesus", rather than "appearance" or similar, because there is no European or Middle Eastern race for example, so if we should use a depiction of Jesus made in Greece, it wouldn't necessarily show a person of the "European race", but could just as well show a Middle Easterner. There is simply no "racialist motive" behind those early depictions, and the peoples in these regions where Christianity originated look and looked so similar that trying to separate them by race in the article doesn't really make sense. Back then, when Islam didn't exist, the Eastern Mediterranean was pretty much a cultural region within itself, with more things in common with each other than with anyone else. Today a Greek might have more culturally in common with a German than with an Iraqi, but it certainly wasn't like that back then. Funkynusayri (talk) 12:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• I never said the term race was "eurocentric". The term Middle East is however. Western Asia is more appropriate but sadly, the casual reader may not know that the "Middle East" is part of Asia. Getting back to the subject, I personally would have said "of African and or Western Mediterranean origin". Leaving out the term race alltogether, as it sounds too national socialist.---Rawoyster (talk) 02:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Unremarkable

Isn't it safe to say that Jesus was whatever everyone else in the greater area was? I seem to remember that the only passages that ever describe his looks say that he was unremarkable, and looked pretty much like everyone else. That combined with the fact that an Ethiopian was -not- described as fitting in among the common populace, and the fact that people kept identifying Jesus as "isn't he from Nazareth, that guy?" seem to indicate ... something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, yes, but some people seem to argue that the entire region had a different looking population back then than it has now, which is of course bullshit. Funkynusayri (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sturmer Nordic Jesus.JPG

Image:Sturmer Nordic Jesus.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

OK someone needs to do some major editing on this page

1) Modern Middle Easterners? The only Near Easterners who you could say properly reflect the Native Levantines of Jesus time would would be: Lebanese people, Syrians (though the southern part of Syria a little less, Assyrians, Turks, Samaritans, Armenians, ect. Most of the other people occupying this region: Palestinian Arabs (not all -- there are many who are descendants of the pre-Arab people), Iraqis, Jordanians, ect. as a majority are products of miscegenation with people from the Arabian Gulf. The Arabs didn't conquer the Levant till a couple centuries after Jesus. So how can someone ridiculously imply that they would reflect the ancient natives of the Near East (specifically the Levant) when they didn't migrate unto the land until the 7/8th century?

2) If you look at the majority of the ethnic groups I listed above (those who are native to the area) -- we as a majority have 'white skin' at least in the same sense that many Europeans do and we resemble Europeans more so than we resemble the majority of our brethren in the Gulf. The majority there having brown skin -- thus why their migration influenced our neighbours.

I do not understand how someone can claim that we have a different appearance than Europeans -- not all Europeans have the same phenotype and not all Near Easterners have the same phenotype and many times our phenotypes overlap each other. Most people can't distinguish me or my mother from a norther Eastern European .. we live in a neighbourhood that is filled with many of these people and they always assume we are one of them.. (Polish, Czech, Romanian, Ukrainian, Russian, Hungarian, ect.); my dad usually gets asked if he's from the Balkans. Most of my Lebanese friends get mistaken for your average white-Americans too -- my point is that our skin has the same appearance as Europeans (be it olive, pinkish, orange, or beige -- you'll find all these skin tones in Europe and the Near East) so we are all white (I'm aware these areas have non-whites too I'm discussing from my own perception, being born and raised in the Near East and from having travelled through out the Middle East) and to try to separate us from Europeans doesn't make sense.

3) Semitic is a language, the Cannanites are believed to have been Semitized at one point. The term Semtic has nothing to do with race or phenotype.

4) So the hundreds of thousands of non-brown eyed Middle Easterners don't matter am I to believe?

5) Please someone do something to this article. I'm offended by the vast generalizations this article makes as a blonde haired, green eyed Near Easterner who doesn't fit the mould of what western society thinks we're supposed to look like.

Sorry if you have trouble with some things I say. English isn't my first language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.64.68 (talk) 11:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Circumstantial evidence for shortness.

Wasn't there a story about how some guy climbed up a tree to see him over the crowds head? Not saying this is evidence of it being Jeshua who was not tall, coul've easily being the guy who climbed... -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The earliest recorded commentators on his appearence say he was short, but that's all. Paul B (talk) 13:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The man who climbed the tree was Zacchaeus. He had to climb the tree to see over others because he was small, not Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.200.214.172 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The color people in Jesus' time

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Seti.jpg <----The ones on the top right are Jews according to the Egyptians. They look nothing like that hypothetical 3d Jesus. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I know, they're supposed to be Libyans, whatever that meant at the time. Funkynusayri (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the ones at the top right are Libyans, with the long coats and feathers in their hair. The Semitic figures are the bearded ones at the top left and bottom right. They are not "Jews" as such, but generic depictions of inhabitants of the areas of Asia known to the Egyptians. Anyway, this is over a thousand years before the guy in the "3D Jesus", if by that is meant the reconstructed face from a 1st century skull. Paul B (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The concept of "race"

What I'm claiming here - that there IS a severe controversy about the applicability of the concept of "race" to human beings - is common knowledge (if this does not apply to any given individual, it can be easily read up on the article race (classification of human beings). Thus, an article that is talking about nothing but race has to mention this controversy right in the introduction. Removing this remark can be considered not much else but pushing the POV that humans are without any doubt classifiable in races, and that there is no considerable controversy about that. -- 790 (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very very tedious to be accused of POV pushing when the issue is relevance. There is debate about whether there is a useful scientific concept of race in humans comparable to the biological term, but there is no debate about whether there is a de facto concept of race that determines a whole range of social programme: for example in census definitions and other government statistics. This is an undisputed fact of life is inscribed in legal and goivernmental discourse (eg census records)). Adding an irrelevant comment about the dispute about scientific models misses the whole point that this article is about historical models and social/cultural models, the existence of which is not disputed. It's just a pointless distraction which confuses the reader with a statement that does not say anything meaningful. In order to make it meaningful you would have to explain it, which would involve going on a long digression that would not really tell us anything relevant to this article, since it is essentially about physical appearence as modeled by socially defined racial categories existing in different periods. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The concept of "race"

What I'm claiming here - that there IS a severe controversy about the applicability of the concept of "race" to human beings - is common knowledge (if this does not apply to any given individual, it can be easily read up on the article race (classification of human beings). Thus, an article that is talking about nothing but race has to mention this controversy right in the introduction. Removing this remark can be considered not much else but pushing the POV that humans are without any doubt classifiable in races, and that there is no considerable controversy about that. -- 790 (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very very tedious to be accused of POV pushing when the issue is relevance. There is debate about whether there is a useful scientific concept of race in humans comparable to the biological term, but there is no debate about whether there is a de facto concept of race that determines a whole range of social programmes: for example in census definitions and other government statistics. This is an undisputed fact of life is inscribed in legal and goivernmental discourse (eg census records)). Adding an irrelevant comment about the dispute about scientific models misses the whole point that this article is about historical models and social/cultural models, the existence of which is not disputed. It's just a pointless distraction which confuses the reader with a statement that does not say anything meaningful. In order to make it meaningful you would have to explain it, which would involve going on a long digression that would not really tell us anything relevant to this article, since it is essentially about physical appearence as modeled by socially defined racial categories existing in different periods. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you and me have some kind of intercultural problem here, as I can say for sure that (nowadays!) in Germany, where I come from, this "governental discourse" does not exist in this way! No government statistic will group people by "race", and little do by "ethnicity"; crime statistics, e.g., may group suspects or convicts by "german" and "foreign", but that's it. Also, in everyday use it's rather uncommon to speak of "race", and while there sure are people that do, it's not existent in the media. To my understanding, this is rather different in the US (don't know about other english speaking countries), where (is this true, anyway?) you may be asked in certain government forms to name your "race", where you are expected to write something like e.g. "white" or "caucasian" - something that would be strongly frowend upon in Europe! So you have to believe me that this is rather not about personaly attacking you, but rather about seeing a concept used here that is very uncommon to me.

Furthermore, the article itself states that it is basically not about the "race of jesus", but rather the "physical appearance of Jesus", and that, while the latter has always been of interest for christians, the former only became interesting with the rise of racial ideologies in the 19th century. So the name of the article does actually describe only a subset of its overall topic! This seems unsatisfying to me, and I think there are two ways out of this. One would be to rename the whole article to "physical appearence of Jesus", but I can imagine that would give quite a stir. The other way, which I tried, is to elaborate the already given remark that the concept of human races had a point on history where it gained cultural importance, by adding a simple reference to the fact that there are signs that the common acceptance of the concept is on the decline. -- 790 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is about how debate about physical appearence is defined by racial categories. All the stuff about curly hair and brass in the the book of Revelation is totally defined by modern American preoccupations with race. It is only of interest in this context because it is articulated by models of racial differrence, otherwise it would be a matter of supreme indifference. The curly-hair-brass-skin 'meme' only circulates because it is an issue of race. As well as modern American race obsessions (which are defined by a black/white axis of difference) there are the late 19th century ones, which are more typically defined by an Aryan/Semitic opposition. Again this was specifically labelled as an issue of race. This is the terminology that is used by the relevant writers - Ernest Renan, Emile Burnouf and the later Nordicists like Rosenberg. It's not simply a matter of physical appearence, since physical appearence is only one index of 'race' for these writers, and in some cases - as with Renan - is not a central concept at all. Again, race is the central concept. As for governmental discourse, this is certainly the case in the modern US, in which affirmative action programmes, statistics on crime, and a whole range of other issues include data-collection in terms of models of race. Census forms in the UK also include data in which race categories are used. In the UK job-appication forms also have such sections (though they are removed before the applications are considered and are kept for statistics). Paul B (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of race is questionable at best. ethnicity is more well defined. In essence we kind of all know what we are referring to. basically we are referring to the overall appearance that a group of people, sharing a common genetic heritage, develop due to their environment. I pulled that out of my ass, and it may be vague enough to be incorrect but it gets across the intended point. we are considering what jesus looked like.

I want to note that the "race" issue is, at its heart, a "racist" issue. most people who argue that "jesus was black" argue as such in a racist way. they claim that the definition of "black" is anything that is not white. seriously. there are people who say that jews are black because they are not white, and that white people consider anyone with dark skin to be black. the most ironic part is that these people are the most racist of the commentators. they are the ones pulling these definitions and distinctions out of thin air.

common sense and a small amount of historical fact would dictate that Jesus had the appearance of the people who lived in the area. He was a jew, but that did not mean he was necessarily ethnically Jewish (which is debatable even at that time, given the inclusion of a religious jew into the ethnic class as a matter of practice). I think most reasonable individuals, without racial bias, would assume and conclude that jesus had the dark-olive skin of arabs or persians (most likely persians). even that term is questionable, because it refers to an ethnic class based on a reference to a specific historical empire or culture, rather than a true ethnicity, but (once again) I think it kind of gets the point across.

Most reasonable, and minimally educated, individuals would probably conclude that jesus had the appearance of the "majority" of the people in that area, because as we all know that area was filled with immigrants and various ethnicities. I highly doubt that anyone who is educated on the subject would argue that he was "black" in the sense that his genetic heritage stems from, say, sub saharan africa. I also highly doubt that anyone even marginally educated would argue that he was "white," in the sense that his heritage stems from northern or northwestern europe.

anyone who argues that he was "black" or "white" in the sense that I just mentioned is probably trying to charge their argument with bias. At the very least, jesus was a jew. From what I understand of history, at that time there was not an appreciable population of either black or white jews using the definitions I just gave. there were certainly more Black jews than white jews at the time, however.

one more thing to note:

If jesus was ethnically dissimilar from the majority of the people in the areas considered, there would undoubtedly be more reference to his appearance in any and all records and accounts of his life. even though there were many black people in the area, the majority of the people would be considered persian or Mediterranean by a huge margin (this is another loosely defined term that I will consider to be people from "north and west" of the "middle east" basically romans, greeks, macedonians, etc, etc but not on the southern side of the mediterranean because these people were black with a sprinkling of persians, mediterraneans as I have defined them, and arabs, so for my definition north africans are black, despite the fact that it is false, it is used here only for discussion) and if he was truly black in the sense that I have described, there would undoubtedly be more reference to this fact simply due to the fact that the people around him would see him not only as a religious figure, but as, perhaps, an ethnically disimilar individual, especially among the jews of the time.

because some people may, incorrectly, assume that my speech here is racist (because I have been addressing blacks more than whites) I will explaim my position. I think anyone with half a brain would know that there were, essentially, identically zero white people in the area at the time. I am not discussing white people because, duhh, they werent even around at the time. I probably would not be discussing native americans in the context of Rome either. I discuss blacks more than whites because that is the only possible "questionable" ethnic class ascribed to jesus that is even possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.16.146 (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposing this be moved to "Ethnicity of Jesus"

I cannot think of why anyone would object, but I'm going to wait and make sure. Peter Deer (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ethnicity does not necessarily have anything to do with physical features, which this article seems to be about. But the name "physical appearance of Jesus" which was proposed above could be a good alternative. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
• But the problem is that this article is specifically about race. It is organised in terms of various racial categories and it is defined by modern US debates about race (mainly on the black/white axis) and by theories prevalent in the "high period" of racial discourse in Europe (c1880-1940) when Jesus's racial identity was a significant concern of various ideologues and artists. This issues comes up regularly on the Talk:Jesus page. I've don't remember anyone ever asking about his appearance in a way that was not defined by the specific idea of race. No one asks about the colour of his hair unless they are making a point about race. The last time this was mentioned on the Jesus talk page was...today! (Talk:Jesus#Black_Jesus). If you look back in the archives you will see it has cropped up over and over. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK so there seems to be a lack of consensus about the topic of this article. I and obviously others thought that this article was primarily about theories of the physical appearence of Jesus, linking them to a disputed theorie of human races. Now, by the explanation of Paul Barlow, which makes good sense to me, this article is all about images of Jesus, which are inherently related to and actually stem from race models of their time. Maybe it would be good to rework the introduction to make this more clear from the start on? -- 790 (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Having the article named "physical appearance" would just make it more inclusive (whether he was tall or short is already mentioned in the article, and that does not necessarily have anything to do with race, for example) , and still include racial aspects of course. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot think of why anyone would object

I object because that idea is mind-bogglingly idiotic. Ethnicity has nothing to do with "race", even though "ethnic" in the United States has come to be a rather absurd euphemism for anyone of non-European descent. Ethnicity has more to do with native language than any other factor. Quebecois in Canada are an ethnic group and the Amish are an ethnic group in Pennsylvania; do you think either of these designations have a fucking thing to do with skin color? Wormwoodpoppies (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the "black Jesus" theory

I've looked at this Wikipedia page, and noticed that there is no information on when, where, or among whom the "black Jesus" theory originated. The section on the Semitic vs. Aryan theories of the 19th century specifically points out the general era of origins, and some of its early/important proponents. However, there is no such information given on the "black Jesus" theory.

I've always wondered where/when this theory originated, and more importantly, where/when it became a discussed theory, especially among blacks. If, to provide a hypothetical example, this theory originated in the United States, in the late 1960s, and its proponents had black-nationalist/black-militant leanings or sympathies, this would be important to know, and to place the argument in the context of its origins.

For example, the Semitic vs. Aryan debate originated in the climate of European anti-Semitism in the 19th century; the "Aryan Jesus" arguments seem to generally be accepted as a product of anti-Semitic ideology. That is important information. So, too, would be who originated this theory. If the "black Jesus" theory originated among late-60s/early-70s U.S. black radicals, then it would be equally important to know this, and whether or not the "black Jesus" theory formed out of black radical ideology.

So far, I have not found any information on the origins of this theory, or its early major proponents. There seems to be a deafening silence on the history of this theory, and I am above all curious to know of its origins, and when, where, and above all among whom it first gained proponents.--99.167.195.150 (talk) 22:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Humour

I fail to see how the homourous bit from the UK magazine needs to be in the article. This article ought to discuss differing views on Jesus' race, not make note of trivial, humourous treatments of the matter. It is non-notable to an encyclopedia article on the subject. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar: "lineage could have borne traces" or "lineage could have bore traces"

This is a somewhat fine grammatical point: I believe "lineage could have borne traces" is right and "lineage could have bore traces" is wrong. Similarly "lineage bore traces" is right, and "lineage borne traces" is wrong. Accordingly the edit by Rande Sefowt [[1]] should be undone. LuxNevada (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Black madonna

The following was embedded by Rande M Sefowt. I am moving it to talk, since it is inappropriate to "hide" claims of contradictions in the text. Dispute should be openly articulated:

"Some confusion over Jesus' race has also resulted from various images and statues, more often of Jesus' mother Mary than of Jesus himself, which are darkly colored, and are referred to using the term Black Madonna." This proposition is incongruent with the information that precedes its issuance; most specifically, the following from the entry's opening: Different societies have depicted Jesus and most other biblical figures as their own ethnicity in their art; for example he is primarily white in the West, and black in Sub Saharan Africa. Going forward, this dissonance in argumentation and intonation should be reconciled.

There is no contradiction or "dissonance". Black Madonnas are a European phenomenon. Their blackness is unrelated to the portrayal of Jesus "as their own ethnicity" by African or African-American artists. Paul B (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is precisely why the passage should not be included in a subsection on "African [depictions of Jesus]", a section framed by the entry opening re: culturally-specific interpretations of Jesus' appearance. The statement in question proposes that there exists some innate confusion on the part of those who interpret Jesus' skin-tone as of a melanin-infused hue, while the opening prominently (and accurately) contends that varying cultures tend to present Jesus in human form in a manner that is in accord with that culture's phenotypical appearance. Hence, there is no "confusion" as the passage awkwardly states, and surely no confusion that relates to Dali's Black Madonna: instead, there are merely African-ist or African Diasporic presentations of this Jesus. sewot_fred (talk) 23:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's there to point out that Black Madonnas are almost certainly not intended to look 'African'. It can only reasonably be in this section. The section is not about "African depictions of Jesus" but about depictions of Jesus that make him look African. The black madonnas have only been raised in this context because of certain attempts to use them as evidence that Jesus and Mary were intentionally depicted as racially black by early artists. The confusion is real. It is the confusion of some writers who make claims about race using black madonnas as evidence. Such claims are not made about Dali, but about anonymous medieval works. Paul B (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The section within this Race of Jesus entry is entitled "Artistic Portrayals". The introduction to this section includes the clear context-affording statement: "whether intended to be realistic or not, images of Jesus throughout history have almost always characterized him as being of the race of the artist or target audience, further complicating the task of determining Jesus' race" [emphasis mine]. If this tendency in artistic interpretation is as common as the entry suggests here -- & in the opening graphs -- its wellspring is not the artists' confusion, but instead, such portrayals are informed by the human inclination to depict a "sacrosanct" being in one's own image. Further, as this subsection is not concerning any writers' literal interpretations of artistic portrayals of Jesus, perhaps those who penned this subsection should consider a) a rephrasing of the opening paragraps in the African [Artistic Portrayals] subsection, b) in-text citations to external works steeped in this supposed confusion and its "kernel" relationship with "African portrayals of Jesus" or c) an entirely new section or subsection (or a new encyclopedia entry altogether) on confusion, misinterpretation, or literalist tendencies in interpreting artistic portrayals of Jesus.

sewot_fred (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Or placing this notion in a section, subsection, or article on the Black Madonna . . .

sewot_fred (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there already is an article on the Black Madonna phenomenon. I don't think I understand your options. As always, rephrasing for clarity is desirable. If you can make the relevant point more clearly, rather than simply asserting that it should or could be better expressed by someone, do so. However, I repeat the point that the section is not about "African portrayals of Jesus". Paul B (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As the passage is incongruent within the paragraph in which it is situated, and inconsistent with the narrative forwarded by the encyclopedic entry itself, the portion re: "confusion" & the Black Madonna should be removed in its entirety (and perhaps re-situated in the Black Madonna entry. If, within the Race of Jesus entry, this passage's author intended to convey something other than the idea that portrayals of a dark-hued Jesus are born of overly-literal, "confused" interpretations of the Dali painting, then that author should rephrase the passage, and perhaps bolster its propositions with in-text citations to relevant source works. I have no clue what that author could have intended to convey here, aside what s/he obviously typed and entered in the African subsection to the Artistic Portrayals of Jesus' Race section. No clue, that is, aside what is suggested by that which the passage states. This is why I appropriately placed my original editorial comments in the embedded portion of the entry.

If/when said author clarifies that which is posed in the subsection's text, I will gladly take a look at the graph and, in consultation, consider which is the more suited resolution of the matter: further editing of the prose for clarity, or removal of this portion of the text altogether.

sewot_fred (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake this is deeply unhelpful. None of this has anything to do with a painting by Dali. It is about medieval paintings and sculptures. If you don't understand that, don't bother. You are wasting our time. Paul B (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Get ahold of yourself. You have brought this conversation to the fore, Barlow. Dali's take on the Black Madonna, the Polish Black Madonna, various Medieval versions of the iconography, etc., are all European portrayals of the Biblical mother of Jesus. As such, they have little to do with this encyclopedia entry explicitly, and nothing to do with the specific section within this entry. If you are the author of the text in question, and you intend to elicit consistency in the text, then clarify what you intend to say here in the Talk Page, or better, in the section's text itself. If someone else is the author, my remarks will remain embedded (bothering no one, save for you), and this back-and-forth will remain on the Talk Page; perhaps s/he will return to the entry and clarify whatever it is that s/he failed to say initially. If the author's objective was to bolster, rather than skew, the text, s/he will forward relevant suggestions for clarification. Until then . . . I wish you balance. sewot_fred (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dali created a lithograph called "La Pieta nera", which in English has been marketed under the title "Black Madonna", even though that it is clearly not an accurate translation of the title. The Madonna in this picture is not black, but white [2], so it clearly has no relevance to this article nor to the tradition of the Black Madonna to which the sentence refers, and which is covered in the linked article. "The specific section within this entry" is about portrayals of Jesus which have been intended or construed as "African" looking. These images (the Black Madonnas) have been construed - mainly by Afrocentrists - as evidence of attempts to portray Mary and Jesus as black Africans. For that reason, as I have already explained, the sentence has everything to do with this section. How is this difficult to understand? I really don't remember who was the author of those words, but that's irrelevant. What matters is whether they are or are not appropriate. I have explained what they refer to and why they are there. How they might be construed as an attempt to "skew" the text is a mystery. Nothing you have said explains what you are objecting to. Your first response claimed that "the statement in question proposes that there exists some innate confusion on the part of those who interpret Jesus' skin-tone as of a melanin-infused hue". As I explained, the the sentence refers to confusion about the meaning of medieval art. That's why it's in the section on artistic portrayals of Jesus, not in the section on speculation about the historical Jesus, so your claim about what the statement "proposes" is mistaken. You then switched to claims about an alleged "painting" by Dali, which is never mentioned in either this article, or the linked Black Madonna article. I can only assume you mean the lithograph I linked to above. Your most recent response does not seem to address the issue directly, but you seem to be now claiming that the sentence is irrelevant because it is about Mary not Jesus. The point is that if Mary is depicted as "black" then the assumption is that Jesus must be too. In any case Jesus himself is depicted with Mary in several such images. I have a photograph of the Guingamp black madonna, which I took last year. I will upload it later tonight. It includes both Mary and Jesus. Paul B (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded the photograph as image:guingamp-madonna.jpg. Paul B (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There has been no change in my position on this matter whatsoever -- neither in its iteration nor in its propriety. Clarity, cohesion, even cogency, would be afforded this section's text through the removal of this Black Madonna digression; perhaps this awkward passage could be replaced with further discussion of intentional portrayals of an "African-looking" (if this is your preferred -- albeit reductive -- phrasing) Jesus, along the lines of the references to the Ethiopian Christian renderings that open the section and the Barzoni paintings which follow. Both the Black Madonna & subsequent Black Nazarene fodder could be moved down in the text and positioned as an addendum (although I suggest rephrasing the framing of such new paragraphs as "[s]ome debate" rather than "some confusion"). Or, as I mentioned earlier, they could be moved into a new section on purported misinterpretations of "sacrosanct" iconography, or into the articles on the Black Madonna or the Black Nazarene, or perhaps placed in your apparent topic of vexation, the Afrocentric "controversy". This "confusion over medieval art" [sic] reads as a clumsy, discordant aside here; if it is not an attempt to skew the section, then surely it is a (perhaps unwitting) effort to change the established focus of the text as prescribed by both the entry's format and the preceding encyclopedic narrative. sewot_fred (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You have constantly shifted your position, but simply can't admit it. The whole Dali digression is an obvious example and you still show no sign of even comprehending what the passage is about. How can anyone imagine that "this passage's author intended to convey something other than the idea that portrayals of a dark-hued Jesus are born of overly-literal, "confused" interpretations of the Dali painting" since a Dali painting neither exists nor is mentioned? I will ask you again, do you understand what black madonnas are? The "confusion over medieval art" [sic] is real, and your asinine "sic" won't make it go away. The confusion is in the suggestion that medieval paintings and sculptures are intended to make Jesus and Mary look African. They are not. Do you understand this? Paul B (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Attempting various dialogic approaches with a bloke who insists on hurling invective across the Pond is not tantamount to changing positions in a "debate". You, friend, are rather oafishly seeking an argument over a matter that is neither of my interest nor relevant to the subject matter of this encyclopedia entry. As of last night, I have corrected the text in the "African [Portrayals]" subsection -- post my revisions, the information contained therein reads in lucid, logically ordered fashion. However, the subsection remains imperfect. Hopefully at some later juncture another editor might add some further reference to portrayals of an African-featured Jesus to the paragraph that currently references Barzoni and Mackenzie; perhaps another editor might add cited referential support to the claims re: the Black Madonna and Black Nazarene which I have moved to the section's closing.

Until then, I will await pertinent feedback from editors concerned with the topic at hand. If you have some further churlish gripe to share with me, Barlow, I direct you to my Talk Page. sewot_fred (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Your rudeness and ignorance has been clear from the start. You obviously simply failed to understand the passage but refuse to admit to the fact because you think you will lose face in some way. The opposite is true. If you had responded to my initial, entirely polite, reply in a positive way this discussion would not have degenerated, and you would have been acting as a member of a community. We could have improved the wording and productively discussed the content of a section on black madonnas. However you persistently misrepresented the issue and obfuscated matters. I have repeatedly explained why the passage is relevant, and you are tacitly admitted that it is by including the material at the end of the section, though you are now obfuscating the consensus of scholarly opinion. By the way, nothing is more churlish than referring to someone by their surname alone, as you have repeatedly done. In future you may call me Dr Barlow. The article talk page is the place for discussing content, not your talk page. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As of last night, the entry's wording has been clarified and improved. The original text was poorly written, conflating unrelated matters within a single paragraph while offering positions that were inconsistent with the entry's opening and the section's premise. No worries, I addressed those errors; hopefully, some concerned soul will come along to provide cited support for the relevance of this "scholarly" opine on damaged and burnt iconography from Europe's cultural nadir. Cheers and good day, sewot_fred (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to be told by you how wonderful your own edits are. However improvements are always welcome. There's a great deal of literature on the topic, as it happens. I will add some citations over the weekend. Many of these images are considered to be especially sacred because they have 'miraculously' survived fires and other hazards. In the case of the Guingamp madonna, the head of the madonna survived an attempt to destroy it during the French Revolution. The figure of Jesus has been deliberately painted black (you can see where the paint has been worn away by the crown) in order to conform to the appearance of the Madonna's head. Paul B (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I look forward to the addition of referenced citations to support this redacted passage's relevance to "Artistic Portrayals" of a Jesus with African features. Otherwise, Godspeed, regardless hue or origin.

sewot_fred (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In Islamic traditions Jesus is described as "a ruddy-faced man":

The Apostle of Allah (‘s) said, “I saw Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Moses was a tall man, and his hair was hanging down, like the men of the ZuT, and like the men of the Shanu’ah.([18]) Jesus was a ruddy faced man with curly hair and medium height.” Then he was silent. They said to him, “O Apostle of Allah! What about Abraham?” He said, “Look at your companion [me].”

(Bihàr 12, 10, 24) http://www.al-islam.org/jesus_shiite_narrations/

Descriptions of David

Is this section on the appearence of David really relevant? Even if we accept that Jesus was descended from David, which many historians do not, David lived around a thousand years before Jesus! His looks can't be said to have been passed on over so many generations. We'd have to know the appearence of Jesus' immediate ancestors. I could have had an ancestor 1000 years ago who was of any race one can imagine. His or her appearence would only have been discernable in descendents for a few generations. Paul B (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering David is Joseph's ancestor, it's more than irrelevant, it's misleading. I've taken the liberty of BOLDly cutting it... Auntie E (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, removed again. Vsmith (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"Aunt Entropy" Proclaims "I Don't Care" While Overriding Wikipedia Admins And Historian Approved Section With His/Her Own Personal Opinions

Originally the section on Jesus' Ancestors (within the Race of Jesus article) existed unmolested for at least a year. As a Jewish historian I added a few relevant points including reference to the best and perhaps only ancient authority on the subject: Josephus, also noting the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries, the Strong's Concordance and the Bible itself. All direct quotes from records, no opinion or original research given at all. It was immediately approved by Wikipedia admin Woohookitty who made one minor change to help clarify a reference. Then "Aunt Entropy" deleted the whole section, including all information and details that others had diligently added prior to my amendments, which had stood unmolested and approved for many months. Reason given by "Aunt Entropy" for deletion of full section was: "completely irrelevant OR, being bold and cutting it)". Jesus' forefather's historical physical descriptions from the bible and the most authoritative Jewish historian, Joseph, is about the ONLY relevant thing on an article titled "Race of Jesus". Anyone can logically estimate that Jesus' own forefathers were of the same race as himself. A child can understand this. "Aunt Entropy" other reason was: "being bold and cutting it". This I literally do not understand, in all sincerity it does not even seem to be proper English, though it smacks of being heated and personal. It is without doubt that this individual has an axe to grind and not objective at all. Regardless of improper English or ill conceived notions, neither reason disputes the accuracy or authenticity of references to Jesus' ancestral descriptions.

UPDATE, Once again: "Aunt Entropy" has gone against the admins of Wikipedia and a Jewish Historian both of whom are clear on all facts leaving out all opinions, with regards to the only real historical relevance to the "race" or ancestry of Jesus (through physical descriptions of Christ's relatives). Clearly this person(s) has an axe to grind and should be immediately BANDED from Wikipedia. It is an outrage, that "Aunt Entropy" still has an account after such childish behavior, it seems very much that I am dealing with an immature individual that has no place being involved in a serious online endeavor to record public information.

"Aunt Entropy", whoever this is, describes his/her reasoning for removing old already Wikipedia approved entries twice as: "(I don't see anything on the talkpage about this section, and I don't care what admin approved it, it's original research)"

So let me get this straight, just so I understand his/her's reckless idea of how Wikipedia works: if it is not on the talkpage, regardless of Jesus' ancestors CLEARLY being relevant to his race and approved by official Wikipedia admins, fully reference and backed by a Jewish scholar, then "Aunt Entropy" has a right to just simply take it down? I'm sorry, but who are you again? Are you the founder of Wikipedia or some type of higher level admin? The truth is your are not, and your pretentious presumptuous pandering will NOT go unchecked. I love Wikipedia and all that it stands for, the creators have produced one of the most brilliant online websites since the webs inception. I use it all the time, but people like "Aunt Entropy" are holding back it's progress with personal options, axes to grind and frankly childish behavior. "Aunt Entropy", may I say that the people of Wikipedia are trying to develop an online encyclopedia for the world to use, not a playground for you to put all your petty little beliefs and opinions into, go start a blog, that is what they are for. But for God's sake stop trying to use Wikipedia to support your own personal ideas as if it was created to be some sort of baby blanket and pacifier for your ideology... to be used to make you feel better about the world as you see it, to fit it into your little box. You have no place in this online exercise and should be removed and I will see to it personally.

"Aunt Entropy's" second argument consists of SLAMMING the admins by telling everyone here, he/she "does not care" about what the official sanctioned admins rulings are. Someone with such a careless disregard for a public online encyclopedia should never be allowed to contribute. "Aunt Entropy", you need to respect the founders and admins even if you will not respect a Hebrew scholar on the subject.

Thirdly "Aunt Entropy", grasping for straws in delusion fervor claims that "it is original research", and so I say, what pray tell is "original research"? How is an ancient historian's comments on a historical physical profile "original research", this is NOT my research at all it is merely ancient records from Josephus. Do you know who he is? Please see his article on Wikipedia. Like many of the articles on this website, it is a good one, and I will insist that this article hold the same standard. There are multiple Hebrew scholars who agree, but the ancient reference itself clearly illustrate the point better than anyone's personal opinion.

"Aunt Entropy" I just want you to know that I will not rest until you are removed and/or severely reprimanded for your childish and careless behavior on Wikipedia. In short you have no place here.

I have changed it back and will do so each and every day you underhandedly remove this approved section. I WILL be alerting the authorities with regards to your flagrant disrespect for the admins, real historians and the rules of Wikipedia.

You are in breach of contract (read the Wikipedia rules again) and you have been sufficiently addressed on this subject.

Sincerely, Joel Ginsberg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have some misconceptions about how Wikipedia works. Let me clear some things up:

• First off, your very long commentary in which you incorrectly describe my personal motivations for my edits are not helpful; they violate our policy of assumption of good faith of our fellow editors and are not conducive to a collaborative working environment. Please focus on the article, not the editors.
• Secondly, admins are not super-editors. Their opinions on how an article is written are not given any more weight than any other editor. Even though two admins have reverted you so far, it doesn't matter, it still shows however that you have at least three editors that dispute the inclusion of the section.
• Also, being bold in editing is also the wikipedia way. That's why I used that word.
• Finally, this is our general policy on editing: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Your edits were reverted, and you are given a reason why: your edits violated our original research policy, namely synthesizing the fact that you deem the subject of physical descriptions of Jesus' ancestors to be relevant here. It doesn't matter whether you believe "any child" can see the relevance, it needs to be sourced to a reliable scholar who finds the descriptions relevant. Upon this reversion, you should have made your case on the talk page to find a consensus that your section is relevant. Current consensus by many editors on this page is that it is not.

At this point you need to find a source that describes the relevancy of the descriptions of the ancestors of Jesus to his race before the other editors of this page agree to it. Auntie E. 20:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Repy to "Descriptions of David" by "Aunt Entropy"

Yes you have been bold, very bold. And you should not have been. Do you know how long it supposedly takes for one species or race to magically "turn" into another, if you believe this? Millions and Millions of years, NOT 10 generations of a race (giving each "father" generation 100 years). NO ONE in the world in their right mind would say that your ancestors would look markedly different from you racially going back only 7 to 8 generations or even 10 or 50 (but you only need less than 10 over span of 1k years) which is really no time at all. Take the history of ANY people on the globe, do you think going back 1000 years in China the Chinese would look different? Go back and look at their ancient drawings of themselves from that period 1000 years back. They look the same. Do you think that going back 1000 years or only 10 generations (giving each "father" generation 100 years) in Ireland means the people magically transformed into a different racial type? One need only look at the drawings of the Irish 1000 year ago, they look very much the same. This is ludicrous, you are not an anthropologist but I am and you ideas are childish, unfounded and CLEARLY opinionated.

Be "BOLD", brushing everything with a wide opinionated brush, making wild generalizations is not the signature of a good public Encyclopedia editor, but rather the marks of pure novice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded to this above, but please see our policy on editing boldly here:WP:BOLD Auntie E. 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Descriptions of David & Solomon, Jesus' Ancestors

1 Samuel 16:12 "And he sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy and had beautiful eyes and was handsome. And the LORD said, "Arise, anoint him, for this is he." - Holy Bible; English Standard Version.

1 Samuel 17:41-43 "And the Philistine moved forward and came near to David, with his shield-bearer in front of him. And when the Philistine looked and saw David, he disdained him, for he was but a youth, ruddy and handsome in appearance. And the Philistine said to David, "Am I a dog, that you come to me with sticks?" And the Philistine cursed David by his gods." - Holy Bible; English Standard Version.

Song of Solomon 5:10-11 "My beloved is radiant and ruddy, distinguished among ten thousand." - Holy Bible; English Standard Version. "My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand." - Holy Bible; King James Version.

The Hebrew word for 'ruddy' used in the above passages is admoniy, from the root adam (Strong's Concordance, #119) "to show blood (in the face), i.e. flush or turn rosy:--be (dyed, made) red (ruddy)." The word given as "ruddy" in the above version of the verses from 1 Samuel is translated as "red-haired" in the Bible in Basic English, but as "healthy complexion" in the God's Word translation. Other translations do not specify whether the word describes David's hair or skin, or is a general description of his appearance. Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews have traditions claiming King David was a red-head.

In Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, VI:164 David's is described as such: "Now, as soon as his father had sent for David, and he was come, he appeared to be of a yellow complexion, of a sharp sight, and a comely person in other respects also." The word 'yellow' here is translated for the Greek word xanthos. The Greek to English Kypros Lexicon translates xanthos ξανθός = blond, fair.

I've moved the above to talk as there is no verification that it's got anything to do with this article: we need a reliable source both making the claim that David & Solomon were indeed Jesus' Ancestors, and that accounts of their appearance were supposed to be inherited by Jesus. As it is, the section is pure synthesis on the basis of primary sources, and as such is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The section can be restored once such sources are provided, though the title will have to be reconsidered as the section immediately above it makes it clear that the question of ancestry is disputed, and the title will have to reflect that uncertaintly. . dave souza, talk 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems we had an edit conflict and the above was already removed. I replaced the other older part I removed in error. I support the actions of Dave souza and Aunt Entropy. Vsmith (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this was really a mess of original research. One thing for sure, Woohookitty just dropped by to change a link to the disambiguation page Greek to link directly to our article Greek language and didn't 'approve' anything. Woohookitty does this a lot to help our articles, and doing it is not showing Admin approval of anything. If it did, then my post right now would show Admin approval of the changes, but my approval of it can only be in my ordinary capacity as an editor. We can't stitch together passages from the Bible to make an argument, that's clearly WP:OR. Meanwhile Joel, why do you have two accounts, Joelginsberg (talk · contribs) and Joelg549 (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

To add to the fun, Joel reverted again,[3] and no-one's yet seen fit to remove the passage pending talk page agreement. Given the emerging consensus it seems appropriate to do so, and to advise Joel as a newbie about edit warring. The NOR concept can be hard for historians to grasp, as they're used to providing their own opinions backed up by primary sources. Unfortunately, it's inappropriate here. . . dave souza, talk 20:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

By simply saying it is Original Research does not make it such. I can say you are a pig but does that make you a pig? You must prove before you remove. You do not argue with the facts only that it is O.R. which it is not.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assertions are incorrect and uncivil. See below. . dave souza, talk 22:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts are Facts Folks

How was this already approved by Wikipedia Admins? Simple, the section existed (approved by many, admins including) for years. I simply came in to add a few more references to the section. No opinions, no new research. ONLY added quotes from the bible and the famous Jewish Historian Josephus (see my changes).

Shortly after my changes to this longstanding section, a Wikipedia admin reviewed (made one very good change to help clarify a reference) and approved it. No further changes.

Then "Aunt Entropy" comes into the picture, CLEARLY heated, passionate, ruffled and full of vigor and personal opinions, he/she simply removes the whole section (What had been up there for months and what was added by me).

Why should it stay there? I'm frankly surprised that I would have to answer this question. Have you read the entry for this section? Have you read the title of the article? The article is on the Race of Jesus. The section within the article is on the only reference known describing Jesus' actually grandparents and/or "ethnic family" take your pick. Does anyone argue that Jesus was not a Jew? This is not rocket science. Are you asking me: How the ancestral description of Jesus' kinfolk is relevant, in an articel called Race of Jesus? Again I'm very confused as to why you are asking this, the title of the Article is what it is about.

Almost everything else on this article is speculation, save this and your asking me why it should stay? Again very confused. Sincerely, Joel Ginsberg PS I have two logins because I forgot my login to the other account, I had no idea that someone would just willy nilly erase my direct RELEVANT SURE quotes with NO opinion. That is why I did not remember it. Little did I know there are trolls here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, I ask you again, assume good faith of the editors here. Do not go on about what you assume are my motivations; you are wrong about them. My motivation is only that policy is applied to this article. You also should be mindful of our civility policy, do not call good faith editors "trolls." You are alone here in thinking this section is not considered original research. It is up to you to change our minds, not just attack and say "You're wrong!" You will not get your way by force. You need to calm down so we can discuss this. Auntie E. 21:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' Ethnicity is listed as: Jewish on WIKIPEDIA

Jesus' Ethnicity is listed as: Jewish right on the Wikipedia article on Jesus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

How is looking at physical descriptions of people of his SAME Ethnicity not relevant to his race? This is madness. This is not Original Research at all, it is relevant fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelg549 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SYN and WP:V, and note the consensus above that the section was offtopic as it last stood. . . dave souza, talk 21:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

“Jewish” is a religion and a culture, but not an ethnicity. Lithuanian Jews and Ethiopian Jews do not share a common ethnicity.

“Race” as such does not exist scientifically speaking, and there are no reliable “racial indicators”. For example in 1912 Franz Boas demonstrated scientifically that cranial shape is heavily influenced by environmental factors, and can change markedly in just a generation or two if their environmental circumstances become materially different. This conclusion was supported in 2003 in a paper by Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard. Factors such as affluence (and hence nutrition) will quickly change size and body shape markedly (as we see today in the Chinese population in rural areas vs modern cities), particularly if the earlier generations were seriously under-nourished. Humans in developed countries today are on average much larger than during World War 2 - a mere 70 years ago. Visit a museum and try climbing into a WW2 era tank or aircraft, and look at exhibits of period uniforms.

Skin and hair colour will change more slowly, unless there is an injection of racial intermixture, and the Levant area was always a racial and cultural melting pot since the earliest times. Pure races (if they existed at all, which they don’t) only stay pure with deliberate effort - often artificially enforced, as with the legislation banning cross-racial sex in apartheid-era South Africa. If just one person in the recent family tree is from a significantly different race, the impact on the physical appearance of following generations will be marked. The Jews today have a strong tendency to marry within the tribe, but per the Bible those guys freely acquired wives and concubines from other tribes, and the blood would have mingled continually. For example King David's wife Bethsheba was originally married to a Hittite before David had him "disappeared", and King Solomon was notorious for his equal-opportunity approach to promiscuity. Who knows what happened to Hebrew bloodlines during the exile years in Babylon - itself a melting pot of note?

We cannot say what the Jews of Jesus’ day looked like by looking at Israelis today – as most of them are of European descent. We cannot assume that Jesus looked like the ruddy people of the time of Samuel and David, because of the substantial racial intermingling that has happened since that time. We can probably assume that Jesus would have looked like the Palestinians of today, but there is no certainty. And there is still no proof that Jesus was created by divine conception, but the Bible is specific that Joseph was not His biological father, so who knows what race His biological father was?

Wdford (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Epic Fail

Dont delete what im writing here because the world needs some common sense....... Only in America can you be so bored and pissy about the whole race subject that you need to viciously debate whether jesus was black or white. He was from the middle east people he was probably dark like all the other people there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.53.222 (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah and people from the Middle East can be of any race idiot. White, Black, Asian, mixed. Secret killer (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

According to some, apparently except for black "except a few... just some slaves" --Panehesy (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that, even in this article, one representation of him predominates. I want to display pictures of the black Madonna and the black Nazareth Jesus from the Philippines on this article. This, not the debate itself is quite an issue to contend with. Like other racial issues, we end up starting on the well weighted notion of white, then we articulate "counter" examples as if that's Neutral. It's not. Here's a thought. show just ONE white Jesus, one Black Jesus, one Asian, one Latino, etc. As a reader, this article leaves me thinking "Jesus was white, but oh how cute, the colored people drew pictures of him too". Great job wikipedia (again). --Panehesy (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And I can hear this excuse now: "Oh the other ethnicities are mentioned and linked". Yes, but the pictures themselves are NOT on this article. Why? Why 3 white Jesus pics? To reinforce to the readers that he must have, in the end, beyond all of the debate... white anyway. Lets see what happens when I add one of the black Jesus pics. Will it 1. Be cited for copyright infringement. 2. Be considered redundant. 3. Be considered NPOV? Lets just see... --Panehesy (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Take this for example: The picture of the Ethiopian Jesus is taken from the same site as this: [4]. One used, the other not. --Panehesy (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You do realise that the relief tomb sculpture you have added is not a depiction of Jesus (except as a baby)? The image at the left is actually a portrait of the deceased person. Why you think that the other image is in some sense non-white is a mystery to me. You only seem to be adding more of what you say you object to. Paul B (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

the full phrase is "white like wool", and it is also compared to snow, contradicting this interpretation. White hair is a sign of age, not of any particular race. It's irrelevant as far as the racial discussion goes. If you disagree, you need to demonstrate some seriously good references as to how white hair contradicts anything determining one's race. --Panehesy (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole passage is irrelevant to any common-sense view because it is a passage about a supernatural being who is appearing in the clouds! However since commentators have raised this point then it is worth mentioning the claims that have been made. In any case Jesus died at the age of 33. The white hair of old age has nothing to do with this. Your argument is both OR and makes no sense. Paul B (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It says that his "HAIR" was white like wool. I have never seen or heard of a response anywhere someone says "his hair is white, so he must also be white". The white hair of old age has everything to do with this comment. His hair being "wooly" is related to his race. His hair being white, irrespective to race. Your response makes no sense, and what you have to do is demonstrate some reference to this because without, it's absurd. You're putting your own POV into this, not some "commentators" nor "claims". Back them up. Till then they are out.--Panehesy (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No-one says his hair is white so he must be racially white, and nowhere in the passage that you are deleting is that claim made. So this is a straw man argument. It has sometimes been argued that 'white' here means 'blond' (and that theory is cited). However the point of the passage that you are deleting is nothing to do with that. It is to note that it says that the hair is white, not that it is woolly. And that is what you are trying to remove. Saying that 'white like wool' means his hair is 'woolly' is as irrational as saying 'white like snow' means that his hair is made of water. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, it's already clear in the first passage The whole of the book of Revelation is generally taken as highly symbolic, and this passage is no exception, especially since the remainder of the description clearly cannot be interpreted as being a natural description., that already this is about a supernatural being. So indicating the racial "counterbalance" is not meant to clarify that we are talking about a supernatural being, but to deconstruct the notion that we are talking about a person that looked black. The idea "he's supernatural, therefore his white hair must indicate that he is not black" is absurd. The racial appearance of Jesus is based on a physical appearance of what he looked like on Earth, regardless of his supernatural ability. Again, to make sure you understand: You presented the white hair as a way to counter the notion that wooly hair is indicative of him being black. But, regardless of the supernaturality of Jesus, you are focusing on a physical trait to somehow mitigate the relevance of another physical trait... regardless of his supernatural ability. The previous reference in Daniel for example would only illustrate that the other Jews were also black, not that Jesus is "not". And finally, in clouds or not, since commentators have raised this point, it's important that when you insert a "however" comment, you must have some common sense or references to it. --Panehesy (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the phrase "white like wool" refers only to the colour of the hair, and not the texture. In other words, the Bible does not say "his hair was wooley like wool", merely that the hair was "white like wool". There is no reference here to texture at all - just colour. Wdford (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed the central point. There is no reference to woolliness at all. And in any case Panehesy does not seem to know that the passage in Revelation is not referring to a human being with "supernatural ability", but to a supernatural person appearing out of the sky. He is not even named as Jesus. He's referred to as "one like unto a son of man", implying that John does even recognise him. [5] Paul B (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My response. His hair, if straight, would not be "white like wool", that would make no sense. It would be "white like something else straight". White like wool is used, because, his hair texture is wooly. There is a reference to wooliness, it's right there "white like wool". Furthermore, all Christian denominations recognize individual as Jesus. If you want to dispute that, you therefore need to take the matter up on another page. Finally, since you are pointing out the color of the hair as your interpretation of a "contradiction" you are inherently recognizing in that statement 1. The individual is in fact Jesus and 2. The hair texture is in fact curly and wooly. Seeking arbitration. --Panehesy (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Let me remind you, the position you are taking is that his hair, being white, somehow contradicts the notion that he is black because or despite the belief it's wooly. No, if you were trying to make a counter to the wooly description, then you would point out that the texture is not wooly. Even then the color is not relevant. It's unrelated. --Panehesy (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC) It seems very clear that you are trying to find anything to somehow "contradict". A contradiction is something that invalidates something else. Hair color being "white" does not imply "blonde" or "light brown". The white hair color is specific in the passage. Secondly, his hair texture is described based on a visual cue. I.E. wool, snow, (soft and curly like blacks and jews). Even Jews today have their hair natural and this is after spending nearly 1500 years intermixing with straight haired Europeans to various degrees. Their hair is wooly and snowy in texture. Not flaxen and straight. --Panehesy (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of an Egyptian of the same period with hair that is "wooly". Now if his hair is white, how does that contradict the notion that he could be black or mixed? Was Jesus lighter or darker skinned than this individual? That's another issue, but there is the wooly and snowy hair texture on a black haired individual. Use photoshop, turn the hair white and presto... no contradiction. --Panehesy (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"His hair, if straight, would not be "white like wool", that would make no sense." Apart from being pure OR that is a ridiculous argument. The phrase "white as wool" is commonplace, simply because wool is white, just as snow is. Is this poem saying that the snow is curly like wool?

I saw three ships a-sailing,

A-sailing on the sea,

The first her masts were silver,

Her hull was ivory.

The snows came drifting softly,

And lined her white as wool;

That is a ship and it's talking about the texture of the snow, which is still more like curly hair than straight hair. You are speaking of inanimate objects. Secondly, you are isolating "snow" when the phrase talks of "snow and wool", for his hair. It still follows. I can describe a person with curly white hair as having hair like snow and wool. I cannot make that description of a straight haired person. --Panehesy (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Or is the fog curly here "An' I'd steer through wind and weather an' the sea fogs white as wool"? Or what about "twilight time under the willows by the river brink, skimming the wool-white meadow mist astride her broom o' beech". None of these lines suggest your theory to be true.

Again, you are speaking of non-human objects, which also belies the fact that back in those days, Jews HAD curly hair! The picture demonstrates that. In this article, we are discussing the race of Jesus, and the comment "hair like wool" is indicative of a valid point. To point out "white" as if that "contradicts" it, is irrelevant, because again, you are speaking of the color alone. You are assuming that in the English 16th century poetry, vs, in the Greek text where it says "Hair was white like wool, white as snow". --Panehesy (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case look up the numerous scholarly commentaries on this passage and you will not find a single reliable source that claims the wool line refers to curly hair (even if it did, lots of Europeans have curly hair). Even the author of Black man's religion: can Christianity be Afrocentric? make no such claim [6]. If we are to delete poorly sourced views then the whole wooly hair thing should vanish altogether since it contradicts the overwhelming consensus of both exegetal and scholarly literature. [7] [8] [9] It is included because it is an internet 'meme' that needs to be mentioned. That's all. You write "Now if his hair is white, how does that contradict the notion that he could be black or mixed?" It's difficult to believe you can be this obtuse. It doesn't contradict it. It contradicts the claim that "white like wool" means woolly. No scholar at all thinks that. None. Paul B (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, in relation to your comment about scholarly commentary on this passage. Then clarify on the page that the "white like wool" refers to something else (like cite the passage, or something like that). Keep in mind Jews had wooly hair in those days and until the 1970s, Jews and Arabs weren't considered white in America. Also this is Ancient Palestine. What I don't agree with is the idea of marginalizing any viewpoint on racial topics through unsubstantiated "howevers" and then saying "oh the view is marginal or fringe". This tactic is an "unofficial" Wikipedia policy. I'm not being obtuse, I'm noticing how interpretations over the generations have taken "white" passages in the Bible at face value, and any "non-white" passages as symbolic. What you're overlooking is this: the choice of words for a person still relate to how that person looks, not merely the symbolism. It's inconclusive to conclude that it can't possibly be talking about his appearance. Also, notice how the fact that Jews in that period had those features anyway... notice how the description is taken not once, not twice, but three times to be refuted. It's as if you're obtuse, or too obtuse to get that it's already explained that this is all symbolic (at the beginning and end of the paragraph). So why then right after the statement? Well, as far as I can see, the fear, the big worry that people will still read the article and possibly walk away feeling that Jesus just might have been black. Oh god, it's like if you could refute it a thousand times in the article you would. --Panehesy (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the expression "white like wool" is typically taken to mean "white", just like "white like snow" or "white like clouds" or like any other white thing. What is most absurd here, is that a description that repeatedly says that he is white is being used to argue that he is black, on the utterly ridiculous basis that white wool is mentioned - in a sentence that says his whole head is white! Of course this almost certainly refers to an intense white radiance and has nothing to do with race at all, but the 'double think' is utterly extreme. Paul B (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And what you are ignoring is that it's talking about his hair. Hair. Not race. Not his ethnicity. Not his skin color. What is being used to argue that he is black is that he has a hair texture that is common AMONG black people. Is white hair more common among Europeans than among Africans? His "head" is speaking of his hair. His "head" is white his "feet" are like brass. I understand that you are making a claim that his description is symbolic of something supernatural, but this article is in regards to the race of Jesus. When the argument is made that "because it describes his hair is woolly" it is illogical to reply "but it is white". So what, you're arguing that his head (not hair) is also woolly"? Of course not. Doubly so because in the book of Daniel (which the article refer to), it says the "HAIR" on his head is like wool (says nothing of the color of the hair). I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment [was] white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: Finally, there is nothing extreme about it. What is extreme is your knee jerk reaction to obliterate any notion that he could have been black, even in the context of the article, you want to neutralize honest neutrality in presenting the actual aspects of the subject. This is very similar to how the race of the Ancient Egyptians has gone. In all articles about race, where black people are involved, deny, deconstruct, minimalize, and block. In Daniel, His hair was white, not his head. In Revelation, it's arguably symbolic, but the whiteness of his head does not neutralize the texture of his hair. --Panehesy (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing on, I also am amazed to notice how you use the words "extreme" and "double think". The argument is not so linear and undeveloped. Bearing in mind that other passages in the Bible describe the relationship between blacks and Jews, all of those things, taken together form the basis of the notion that Jesus was to some degree black. But of course, the way this article is painted? The typical way: "extreme Afrocentricists take one example, in a plainly out of context fashion and densely make a point that is utterly false". That's the tact here, but that's not what's happening. While you heroicly scan any thing historical in Wikipedia for the "taint of blackness", you yourself show your own flat thinking one dimentionality. In other passages of the Bible, Like Amos 9:7 where it's plainly stated that the Israelites are as the Ethiopians (with the next passage indicating how God brought them out of Egypt), or in the Song of Songs 1:5 it clearly says that "I am black, beautiful, oh daughters of Jerusalem" (I have no idea where the but in KJV and later versions came from), and yea yea, I already am expecting you to say that that "black" in Song of Songs is also symbolic, probably of some sin or curse or whatever you've all been trained to think. I also expect you to say that the Amos passage is somehow something symbolic. That is what is so absurd, everything in the Bible and Egypt that is black as far as human physical background is symbolic. --Panehesy (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC) But these passages, taken together, WITH the revelations statement paint a picture of Jesus background as it relates to all Jews of these periods. That is where the notion that he is black comes from, not just from Revelations. So like I said, you guys are once again misrepresenting the black side of another racial article to be simple minded, dense, linear, and without context (i.e. you're withholding more information that clarifies the position, correctly positions it historically and contextualizes it based on it's premises, and instead using intellectual prejudice to block and marginalize the position as afrocentric...read "false" to the masses). --Panehesy (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How can "colour like X" have anything to do with texture? This conclusion is pretty much original research and unfounded. It's like saying that if someone has hair that is yellow like corn, it must have the same texture too. FunkMonk (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats MY point. The hair texture is described as wooly. Why does anyone conclude that we are speaking of color alone? Look at the passage in Daniel. Texture, not color. Answer this question, why does the word "woolly" lead you all to think "white"? White means white, woolly means woolly. I get that the two are used together in symbolism, but this is not conclusive esp when both are used "white" and "woolly". --Panehesy (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me try this another way. Who else here sees a pattern? I can name 10 things found in Ancient Egypt and Bible that describe black, or African, or negroid characteristsics and each of them, will be responded as being merely symbolic or misunderstood:

The reason I raise this is because this whole over reaction, the "we must stop any notion of blackness in the Egyptians as soon as it is uttered" is all because, Egypt is a founding pillar of Jewish heritage, and if the Egyptians are black, ergo, so goes the Jews to some degree and the Messiah, a black man? Oh that's too much. Why do you think the ban on the Ancient Egyptian race debate was so severe? The severity of the reaction is proportional to the quality of the presentation of the black side. Watch how the Oxford reference I use in THIS article is handled. I'm wagering it's going to be called "irrelevant". --Panehesy (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the very definition of synthesis, but anyway, how do you explain that the modern day Levantines, including Jews, are not black, and have hardly any sub Saharan ancestry? Sub Saharan ancestry is at its largest in the southern part of the Arabian peninsula, and decreases as one goes up to what would be the holy land. How does this make sense? FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all, if you look at all the people of the levant, you will find black and darker skinned members. They are called the Sumr. Secondly, I've met quite a few Palestinians, everyday people, and they do look indeed like black people. Which goes to the issue of how the media portrays people. You see on TV, the pictures that the editors choose, and far too often the darker skinned ones are not used in the media clips. In regards to Jews, thanks to Hitler, all Jews in Europe who showed visible black or ethnic traits were eradicated, not to mention those who were circumcised. Remember, Hitler's first act as Chancellor was to sterilize all african/mixed Germans before his anti-semitic activities took off. Those Jews who escaped by blending in were the ones that look more like Germans. How about you explain how Jews who lived in Europe just so happen to resemble so much those people around who they lived near? After 2000 years of intermarriage, even a bit, changes the appearance. Then you have the Jews in Africa (Ethiopia, Mozambique, etc) who you do not count. The Sub-saharan ancestry also increases as you go west from Syria and until the migrations of Greeks, Syrians, Caucasians, and others into Egypt from 300BC to the present, it was more prominent than today. Google search, keyword black palestinians. Pahehesy, calm down, you're over-reacting, but the premises that you make are correct. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there a few black Palestinians, but these are descendants of slaves or pilgrims[10], not natives. Same with the black Iraqis.[11] Using these as proof for ancient black Levantines would be like using the presence of African Americans in America as proof that the ancient Amerindians were black. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thats prejudiced nonsense you just said and predictable. "A few" and "just slaves". You're repeating what is said all over the place whenever black people are found outside of Africa. That's your first assumption. It is totally different than using African Americans because there are continual settlement and migration patterns throughout Egypt to Africa and the Near East. You cannot find that in America. Secondly, its even mentioned in the Bible that the first inhabitents of Canaan were "Hamites" and that's not "lightskinned people". Your rationale is based on a predisposed assumption, without proof. Try that same technique with the Arabs living in Palestine. We are talking about prehistory and you cannot definitively say one way or another. The "a few...just slaves" rebuttal is a common and tired response. It's as if everywhere you see in the world, all the black people you find were "a few...just slaves". Nope, we've deconstructed that myth. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the articles. These slaves and pilgrims settled there in historical times. We know how it happened, when it happened, so there's not much to discuss. And yes, they are few, since only 10% of for example Palestinians have sub Saharan ancestry. That does not even mean that 10% are black. Even then, the Palestinians are in the absolute high end when it comes to black ancestry in the Levant, only 1% of Lebanese have it for example. As for Hamites and all that nonsense, the bible is no authority on biology or history. FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Funk, you're taking all ancient references to black people as symbolic and isolated, and all recent examples as the product of slavery or after the fact. It's very systematic your approach. You simply have not investigated the possibility that the original inhabitents were black or were populated with black people. Your approach doesn't reconcile the prehistoric evidence showing black people as far away as Australia, Philippines, Andeman Islands, India, S.E. Asia, and on and on... The view that only one or two migrations eeked out sometime many thousands of years ago is insufficient, because it shows inexplicable gaps. Oh more primitive black people were able to populate most of the old world, but after that and since the time of writing, black people couldn't leave Africa without some lighskinned person holding their hand or enslaving them... That preposterous. Keep that in mind when you make your counter arguments. Black was not viewed as negatively in the Bible. You're reading the text as translated by 16th century English compilers which shows their prejudice. The hebrew text, over 1500 years before them is not from the same vantage point. You're sharing and upholding that vantage point here. English writers had no, absolutely no, perspective on how dark skin was perceived by the Hebrews. So they added the "but" in Songs 1:5 and the "vile" in Amos 9:7 to the text. It's not in the original text. And when you take them out, you get a different sense of the meaning. Moses wife Tzipporah was a black woman, how on earth can being black be viewed negatively by the Hebrews? Even more so how absurd it was that a second "lesser" wife was invented to explain this. And of course this same lack of perspective shows, the "black is bad" prejudiced mentality shows as the curse of cain, still taught by groups like the Mormon church. This approach is inappropriate here on Wikipedia. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything as symbolic, I'm simply looking at present day fact, and well documented historical facts. Bible legend is neither. Of course there were black people present outside Africa in ancient times, what I disagree with is that whole non-African ancient populations consisted of black Africans. There's simply no unambiguous proof of it, therefore the null hypothesis would be that ancient populations in certain regions outside Africa are similar to the modern inhabitants of these regions, especially if this is supported by genetics and history. As for Tzipporah, there has been speculation that she might have been a "Cushite" long time after she even existed (in the friggin' Medieval), from this to jumping to that she was black beyond doubt is pretty unstable. In any case, these old labels, Cushte, Semitic, hamitic, has no scientific value today, outside bible studies, and in linguistics, but this is only applied terms, since there is no mention of for example "Semitic languages" in the bible. The two even contradict each other, as the Canaanites are "Hamites" in the bible, but "Semites" in linguistics. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bible archaeology has been a well attested institution over the past 40-50 years. The people, and legends in the Bible, discounting the supernatural, are confirmed archeologically. Legendary people were found out to be existent, like the Hittites. You complain about "whole non-african ancient populations consisting of black africans" because you confuse geography with ethnicity and race. Black "people" is not to be confused with black "Africans", although there is an understanding of interrelatedness. Genetic mapping of ancient people, is by itself inconclusive in determining the physical characteristics of them. You find all sorts of genetic markers in people in antiquity which lead you to conclude they were part of one group, however, unless those genetic markers related to skin color, or facial features, they are at best, hints, not evidence. And they do not alone help you determine how that entire group appeared. Especially in the case of the Egyptians, Hebrews, and other people of this sort. Cushite is a word that literally meant "black skinned human" in Hebrew. Just like Nehas meant black Nubian person in Egyptian and changed much later in Hebrew to mean bronze skinned person. Saying that Tzipporah was Cushitic, but not black is taking modern linguistic interpretation and retroactively applying it. It's doing the same thing you're being accused of doing further up the debate. They didn't call her Cushitic because she spoke a "Cushitic" language classified by someone eons later. They called her Cushitic because she looked like a Cushite, i.e. a black person. Linguistics was not a field of study that the Bible writers used to classify these people. Cushite...Thats the hebrew word "for black appearing person", not "person that speaks a Cushitic language". So Like i say, everywhere you go you are trying to literally take the black out of black. Yes, you say that there may have been some black people in those regions, but where history shows them, you deny, dismiss, marginalize, and reinterpret. For what it's worth, you spoke of African Americans right? Well if I took your approach, most African Americans would be white, they speak English and they also have genetic markers, indicative of Caucasian white ancestry. Which genetic markers do you choose? The answer is clear, you look at what they looked like, how they described themselves, and the context of their origins. The Hebrew people, closely related to the Egyptians consisted of people, that if living today you would think were black to bi-racial. And to redefine blackness, especially to conveniently recategorize these ancient people, well that is disingenious on your part. --68.61.20.46 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that Tzipporah was retroactively speculated to be a Cushite in the medieval! Not even in the bible, where she is a Kenite, however ambiguous that is. When I said "black" in that comment, it was obvious I meant African black, I'm well aware that some populations outside Africa are referred to as black today, though they are unrelated to modern African blacks. As for bible archaeology, what does that have to do with black African people? When has it proved anyone to be black? That's the problem here, there is no unambiguous proof that any ancient population outside sub-Saharan Africa consisted of black Africans, therefore the null hypothesis must be that there wasn't, and that the ancient peoples in these regions were most similar to the ones that live there today, if that can be supported by genetics and history. The null hypothesis can never be that people from a completely different part of the world inhabited these regions on a large scale, especially when not supported by genetics or history at all, but by ambiguous, ancient anecdotes and myths. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Funkmonk your comment is false. Book of Numbers, Chapter 12:1: And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Kushite woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. Secondly, some populations, black populations are loosely related to African black people, some less so. It's impossible to definitively say unless you take that same effort at clarity by taking each group on it's own, and not lumping them all together. Bible archaeology relates this issue regarding the presence of black people in antiquity by corroborating it with passages describing the same people: Kushites, Nehesi, Ethiopians, etc. Your question "when has it proved anyone to be black" is somewhat ignorant. But whats more ignorant. There is no unambigious proof that any ancient population outside sub-Saharan Africa consisted of black Africans. Lets take your line of thinking... in pre history you find ancient people known to share traits with black people. The question is how far back in time do you go, via genetic drift mapping, to determine when. Then in historical context, the question turns from a 'when' to a 'how'. did they come as colonists, civilizations, etc, or just slaves? Do you see how manipulative that is. You say "no genetic evidence" but then you find it you say "slaves". After all, you don't count any prehistorical contact or colonization. You consider those brown, in the middles, to be exclusive from being a part of any black group (although why you would include them into other macro groups is beyond me). It's not a null hypothesis you're supporting, it's a circular argument. You've redefined the boundaries or the language of the premises, and thus you invent you own interpretation. No genetic evidence? Well of course not, when all the genetics FOUND in these regions you already say "not allowed to be considered related to black people" Blacks, being the most diverse, with the nexis of that in Ethiopia... no problem... just call the Ethiopians themselves mixed with non-black elements. But it is supported by history, where black and/or African people populated various areas in Asia. Remember the time in Wikipedia when only the very narrowly defined "true negro" type was considered black African, but various various types of people all over Africa and Asia were considered to be Caucasian? Is that where you are going? --Panehesy (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yet again you jump to unsure conclusions, as long as they suit your view. From the Zipporah article it can be read that the Cushite woman is not named, so that there is no proof that it refers to Zipporah, and not some other wife. And yet again, even if she was referred to as a Cushite", it wouldn't matter, since Cananites were referred to as Cushites too, and their modern day descendants (Syrians and Lebanese) are neither physically or genetically black Africans. To make matters worse, Canaanite was a Semitic language too, not a Cushiti one. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not implied anywhere in the Bible that moses had more than one wife. Your argument is similar to the Curse of Cain mentality, which is why it's viewed as somewhat racist and anti-black. Cain had a mark. So assuming the mark is black skin, we must somehow prove that the mark does not indicate that Cain was the ancestors of black people??? The key mistake you make is assuming that Moses married a second woman. There is no proof that Moses married a second woman, nothing implied in the Bible even hints of it. So you do not make the assumption that he did, then insist that someone else disprove it. Next, Cushite means "black skinned human" in Hebrew and Egyptian. If that does not describe a group of people as black, then nothing can. It's like taking the word "laban" and saying, Laban doesn't mean a White person. Laban literally means "white person" just like Cushite literally means "black person". Linguistics does not apply here, because the language of those people do not indicate their physical appearance. A black race of people called Canaanites spoke a Semitic language. Your notion that all groups of people speaking Semitic were by definition "not black" because they spoke a Semitic language is absurd. Semitic is an AFRO-Asiatic language, which owes it's origins to Ethiopia. You're arguing that Semitic should be considered a "lightskinned-Asiatic" or "Caucasian-Asiatic" language. It is not. I have no doubt that you can do a good job editing articles, but your approach, because of your bias, makes you have blind spots that put you on a level not much different than a newbie or someone who does not understand the rules. You just seem to ignore them when it's about representing black people in history. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Please. Yet again, you jump to any ambiguous description and claim it as absolute proof for what you believe~in. All I'm doing is being sceptical. Cush apparently means "dark", there's a very large leap from this to the ancient Canaanites being black, Africna people. Don't be ridiculous. As for one wife or more, who the heck knows? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There is your inconsistency right there. You want to avoid assuming anything based on anything less than absolute proof when it's something you diagree with. But on the next comment, "who the heck knows"? So what? Let's just roll right on and consider that Tzipporah wasn't black then... No. That's not going to fly. You have no absolute proof about him having more than one wife. Heck, you have not even a reasonable doubt that he had more than one wife. You only have an hypothesis that for some reason you cannot or will not articulate the rationale for raising. It's like, Moses might have been an alien, who the heck knows! Cush has been consistently demonstrated in archaeological records, in descriptions to refer to dark skinned people in Africa, and to a lesser degree darker skinned people in the northwestern reaches of India/Pakistan. In Africa, Cush are identified with black people. That is what black people are Funk, dark skinned people that live in Africa... including Egypt. Is it really bugging you that much that the ONLY WIFE OF MOSES was Black? --68.41.101.63 (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply:

1. Phinehas=Nubian (Names used in those days conveyed meaning. They are not last names, but first and only names. The mentality of common last names do not apply to old world naming conventions)
2. Kemet=black land/land of the blacks (most egyptologists accept that it refers to the land, black land/vs red land, but
3. woolly hair= His head and hair were white like wool - Rev 1:14
4. feet like brass - in a furnace - that is white hot, it could also describe him as being brown or dark brown skinned.)
5. Amos 9:7=Israel is like Ethiopia... I took them out of Egypt... (The similarities are described not by merely indicating that they were just taken from one place. In Egypt, during this time, Nubians, Kushites, and Hebrews were uprooted from their lands by Egyptians and made to live in the others areas. Nubians were moved to Canaan, and Semites were put in Nubia. It was a common practice by Egyptians to break up societies to weaken them.)
6. Song of Songs 1:5=I am black, beautiful - The Hebrew text has no "but". Just like the Hebrew in the Amos text has no "vile". Those were added in the 16th century. www.blueletterbible.org
7. Nehesi priests of Egypt during the 15th-13th century - (indicative of the commonality and acceptance of black people in Hebrew society. Moses married a black woman. Moses nephew had a black child (Panehes) that they named "Nubian".
8. Ethiopians in antiquity being black people and not merely tanned Europoids - A position that has been met with much resistance until very very recently.
9. Ancient Egyptians being called black by racist archaeologists in the 19th century based on what they uncovered. - Racists who would not like the notion of black people ruling a society that they themselves admired were shocked to find that it was indeed the case, much to their dissappointment.
10. Black and dark skinned statues and frescoes of ancient Egyptians (there are all skin tones in Egyptian art, as is to be expected in an empire that spanned from Syria to the Sudan)- Also note that Egypt itself the people are dark skinned, portrayed darker than the Syrians, darker than the Libyans. Dark like black people who are not as dark as other black people. Paul B (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC) --68.41.101.63 (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's amazing with the Song of Songs comment. "Black is anegative thing, strongly implying it is not the norm. Why else would she mention it?" If you read it, again, without using the "but" which is not in the Hebrew text. There is no "but" in the text, you will see a different understanding of the text comes out. In addition, the Nehesi priests do live during the time of Moses and Phinehas. Your argument that they would just name him, not relating that to anything is nonsense. Names in those days had meaning, and to name your child , who becomes a priest, after a series of priests of the same period is telling. It's ironic you disassociate the views of the negative so quickly, but it tells a lot. You see, when enemies speak of something, lets say Romans who derided the Christians in the 2nd century. When they write ABOUT them, that's evidence that they existed. Why else would the enemy fabricate them if they did not actually exist? They existed. Same with the Egyptians and the 19th century. They saw them as black, despite their racism, not because of it. That indicates that they certainly were very much so black. You're not showing objectivity, but instead, picking and choosing whatever interpretation goes to your predisposed opinion. Notice how you use swarthy over and over, instead of black. The text says black, not swarthy, a word used by 16th century English writers to describe Germans. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The "amazing" Song of Songs comment is just the standard interpretation of the text, as anyone who bothers to read the whole passage rather than just a few words isolated from the context would know. I bet you've never even read the Song of Songs. I did not choose to use "swarthy", I simply copied the first translation on the website. In any case colour terms for race are all relative. What we call white people are not actually "white" and what we call black people are not "black", anymore than East Asians are actually "yellow" or Amerindians are "red". It's common to use the most exaggerated word to refer to even relatively minor variations of tonality, as we all know. Otherwise Barak Obama would never be called "black". You have no answer at all, I see, to the substantive issue of what the Bride means and the explanation she gives about the sun-tanning. Paul B (talk) 11:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

ps I've no doubt that "Nehesi priests" lived in the time of Moses. So what? No doubt Nubian priests lived in time of Julius Caesar, and there were certainly black people in the Roman Empire. That does not make Julius Caesar black does it? Paul B (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No no my friend. With your high standards of verifiability, you do not have the luxury of assuming something like that. The Nubian priests of the Amun religion in Egypt were the High Priests of that region during the 18th and 19th dynasty. No less than three are named such at this time. For the third high priest of Israel to share this is indicative of the background, considering that Moses married a Kushite woman also. But since you keep isolating each example, you can always find some non-black explanation. But you don't do that in any kind of discipline. Roman society does not directly link over it's history to any black civilization. The issue of Egypt goes to it's roots, and a continual interaction, much like the Levant. What is being said about Egypt and to a lesser degree about Jesus is that they are a melting pot vs a salad bowl of segregated skin colors, like any black family. With Jews, it's less pronounced, but this article discusses the points of view of each side as it has been presented. You seem to be bent on deconstructing one side only and that is against wikipedia policy. It's offensive also that on the white section, you would turn a blind eye while the point of view is justified! This is bias, pure and simple. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OH I almost forgot. Paul, on the last point. Yes, you would expect all skin tones in Egyptian art. You don't expect that in a society that is Caucasoid, or "not-black". The only other race of people that demonstrates the same variation are modern day black people of the western hemisphere. True enough, we retroactively describe Egypt as black, but that is to demonstrate the similarities are closer in line with modern black people than modern Caucasians. Well, you just proved that. "it is to be expected"... in a black family as well as in Egyptian art. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this has no relevance whatever to the Race of Jesus, the topic of this article. Secondly, you are confusing the issue. Caucasoid is a racial classification based essentially on skull shape. You are confusing that with the US situation in which Sub-Saharans have mixed with Europeans, but because of US history mixed persons are referred to as "black". The clinal differences in the territory of the Egyptian Empire is wholly different, though of course mixing would occur in any population, especially in the more mobile upper-reaches of society. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The race of Jesus in the black subsection is based on the information I provided. Your exasperated responses here to somehow neutralize their relevance in the article is what I am discussing and standing against. The differences in the Egyptian territory are not articulated well on your end. I see little to no difference in their physical appearance compared to modern black people. I see a great difference among white people. You speak of mixing, but lets talk about how they started out even before they were mixing. DO you somehow assume they started out as a white looking people (regardless of the details) who simply mixed with non-white or black people? --68.41.101.63 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And again, I realized that you are speaking of a last name William BLAKE. Panehes was his first (or only) name. If being black was viewed so negatively, they would not name their child who would become a high priest "black/Nubian" unless there is some intention to empathize that? Which goes back to the Song of Songs and other things, there is no logic to the notion that mentioning black in a name or a person de-empathizes the blackness around them. It's like being in Europe where a white person would be called "white" or "porcelain skin" or soemthing to that effect. The surrounding Europeans are not viewed as non-white because of that. --68.41.101.63 (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

After reading this thread, I am convinced that they are trying to simply hold on to a preconceived view. I think some of them are just trying to figure out how to take that Oxford reference out of the article. It's an insane approach to literally de-blackify black. Yet when this same approach is done on the Greeks it's called "Afrocentric pseudohistory". Yea. Greeks were "white" but not really white. Where ever you read about white people in ancient writings that was symbolic, you know, white as snow, not really Caucasian people. yea ok. Try that argument out somewhere see how far it goes. Nor will it work in regards to black either. Some of you are so convinced that black was looked down upon, that despite the overwhelming evidence, you simply systematically isolate each piece of proof and recontextualize it around a 15th-19th century Western European mindset about blackness, virtue, symbolism, and lingustics. It's called Eurocentrism. --68.61.20.46 (talk) 23:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The thing I am trying to explain is that, regardless of my viewpoint, or any other, it's proper to explain the points of view accurately. The Jesus as black viewpoint is presented incorrectly in the article. To go on and on countering it based on insights that are not even confirmed is not neutral. Look at the Jesus is European section, do you see all of the howevers, and countering there? No. Instead, you have this Nonetheless, because Western or European ethnicities are composed of many subgroups (whether biological or perceived), such as Mediterrean, Slavic, Northern European (Nordic), the issue is more complex than monolithic. In addition, it is possible many European portrayals of Jesus may be based on the appearance of European (Ashkenazi) Jews, who often have "white" skin tones or facial features, and sometimes blond hair and blue eyes. There is wide variation in appearance within the modern Jewish population upon whose appearance artists may base their depictions. In other words you have the writer conveying the message that the Jesus as a Caucasian is plausible, despite the evidence to the contrary. There is wide variation, it says. No no no, not when the notion that he is black comes into the conversation. ASkhenazi Jews lived in Europe for 2000 years after Jesus life, but that is not clarified in the article as a "however". In the end, the "mediterranean" group is forced down our throats as exclusively Caucasian/White or part of the European ethnicity, even when these people are not European in origin or appearance. just slaves... only a few... --Panehesy (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is my proof: Nonetheless, because African or Black ethnicities are composed of many subgroups (whether biological or perceived), such as Mediterrean, Latino, North African (Egyptian), Negroid and Khoisan, the issue is more complex than monolithic. In addition, it is possible many African portrayals of Jesus may be based on the appearance of Ethiopian (Beta Israel) Jews, who often have "black" skin tones or facial features, and sometimes woolly hair and black eyes. There is wide variation in appearance within the modern Jewish population upon whose appearance artists may base their depictions. --Panehesy (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)