Jump to content

Talk:Race and appearance of Jesus/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Totally Irrelevant

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

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

Well, I hope you know your biology better than your theology; for Immaculate conception is about the conception of Mary, well over a decade before the birth of Jesus. And in any case, the historical/scientific perspective does not accept the Holy Spirit (or other supernatural events) and in the Jewish perspective biologically speaking, Jesus was just a regular person, so your comment is beside the point. History2007 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, s/he got the meaning of "immaculate conception" wrong. It's a common mistake. But the central point is valid, despite the fact that the OP seems to imply that Jesus is obviously and undeniably the son of God. The theological perspective does throw a spanner in the racial works, and that is a cryucial aspect of the history commentary on the 'race' and 'look' opf Jesus, in speculation by theologians and in artistic depictions. It's surely not irrelevant. It's just as relevant as the theorising by 19th century race ideologues and people who think his mam had an affair with a Roman soldier. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Jesus was Jewish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or...?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sir Barlow? No, that's formally inaccurate. It would be Sir Paul, though you could also call me Lord Barlow if I were a baronet. Either will do. I don't mind. Unfortunately I am still awaiting these honours to be bestowed upon me. As for this article, I still see no sign that you are proposing a specific edit. Are you the person who added a whole pile of stuff a while ago about Jesus's "ruddy" faced ancestors? That was all what we call WP:OR. See WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Jesus could be assumed to be Jewish, but this tells us little about his ancestors. A scientific article suggests that Jesus was a mamzer: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Chilton_Mamzer_Jesus_Birth.htm . Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:48, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial Objectivity Needed Here

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

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

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

Hello. You just sign with the four tildes. No need to actually write out your name too. It all appears as if by magic. Wikipedia policies are explainmed in WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS, plus a bunch of other pages called WP this-and-that. Of course pages are in fact written by real people with various agendas, not by machines conforming to policies, so there will always be an element of competing POVs, as we say, on controversial topics. In that respect we can never achieve pellucid objectivity, stark, crystaline or any other kind. Inter-religious polemics should be part of the content, explained according to... WP:WEIGHT. Paul B (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Angelomorphic; the article seems hopelessly compromised by 21st century politicized notions of race and ethnicity. There doesn't really seem to be much to debate here. Jesus, if he actually existed, was an ethnically Jewish Semite of Levantine origin. Since there are no compelling reason to think he was of mixed race, and it is very doubtful considering Jewish endogamy at the time, the reasonable presumption must be that he had a phenotype typical of Semitic people from the Levant, which is to say he would have been Caucasian with dark hair and eyes and a tan complexion. To debate whether he would have looked Middle Eastern or European is mind of meaningless considering he was from the Levant and people from the Levant look European. The borders of Europe are political and cultural, not genetic; there is no "International Race Line" between Greece and Turkey or some such.CannotFindAName (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh My Gosh Friend! You are almost restoring my faith in Wikipedia as something more than an updated "new Marxist" "language game"...

Indeed the absolute sugar-coated tone and bloated PC-style soft-peddling of the textually and archaeologically and super-abundantly documented SEMITIC WESTERN CAUCASIAN "race" of Jesus Christ (if Christian, the fair-featured descendant of rosy-toned, fair-featured King David and Mary and Joseph, faithful to Jewish royal breeding; or, for Talmudic Jews, the equally FULLY CAUCASIAN descendant of Mary with an absolutely INDO-EUROPEAN CAUCASIAN Italian-Roman military commander -- "Ben Panthera") -- all this "spin" here is confounding and atrocious, even for the medley of fanatical post-Marxist metaphysically-dissociated "new" Zionists who dominate Wikipedia in terms of obsessive contribution... OF COURSE JESUS WAS CAUCASIAN! GOOD GOLLY, let us man up here... Embarrassing academically! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites

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

They are a cranky hate group. This is like asking if proclamations about the ethnicity of Jesus made by skinheads were scholarly. Look Jesus, if he existed, was ethnically Jewish, an eastern Mediterranean from the levant. This leaves little doubt as to his likely phenotype; he would have most likely been a dark haired, dark eyed Caucasian. The only way this would be otherwise is if he were of mixed race, which is very unlikely considering g Jewish endogamy at the time. Without any basis to think otherwise one must assume Jesus - if he actually existed - was a Levantine, ethnic Jew and would have had a typical eastern Mediterranean phenotype. CannotFindAName (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Equivalent of the Heaven's Gate cult. These weird black fascist nationalists outdo the white fascist esoteric Nazis and Evolians, even Miguel Seranno, in pure lunacy. Mentioning their absolute drooling dementia of cogitation as somehow meaninful is totally baseless and pointless academically. Their support is purely reliant on psychologically schizophrenia-afflicted individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Illustration

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

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

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

Justin Martyr and genealogy

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

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

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

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

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

Santo Niño de Cebú

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

The Jewish Face

Jewish skulls are wider, rounder & robust (i.e. Mongoloid & Negroid type); non-Jewish Skulls are long & narrow (Caucasian). [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.81.157 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

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

Galilean vs. Judean

In the video "The Man Who Saw Jesus" (taken from the National Geographic series "Biblical Forensics") it is shown that Galilean people were dolichocephalic and Judean people were brachycephalic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.1.131 (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Quran and Hadith

The current version of the section on Muslim views is as folows:

Quranic and hadith traditions such as Sahih Bukhari as well as tafsir have given an oral depiction of what Jesus looked like, although some accounts don't match, such as Jesus being both curly haired and straight-haired: "Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said, "One should not say that I am better than Jonah (i.e. Yunus) bin Matta." So, he mentioned his father Matta. The Prophet mentioned the night of his Ascension and said, "The prophet Moses was brown, a tall person as if from the people of the tribe of Shanu'a. jesus was a curly-haired man of moderate height." He also mentioned Malik, the gate-keeper of the (Hell) Fire, and Ad-Dajjal", in Book 55, Hadith 608; and "Ibn Umar said, “No! I swear by Allah that the prophet (pbuh) didn’t say that Jesus was light-skinned, but he said ‘While I was asleep, I was walking around the Kaaba when I saw a black-skinned man with straight hair between two men. I asked who the man was and I was told that he was Isa (Jesus) the son of Meryem", in Bukhari hadith number 3185.

This is all cited to a book called Jesus: A Brief History, p221. In fact the only passage on that page about Jesus' appearance says that "From the Hadith of Al-Bukhari, for example, we learn that Jesus had curly hair and a reddish complexion". Other sources confirm this: "and I met Jesus and the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) described him as one having a medium stature and a red complexion as if he had (just) come out of the bath." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 607); "and I saw Jesus who was of average height with red face as if he had just come out of a bathroom." (Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 648). Obviously the 'bath' reference implies that his features were visibly flushed (which is only possible with palish skin). However, there is another Bukhari hadith which seems to contradict the others: "Narrated Salim from his father: No, By Allah, the Prophet did not tell that Jesus was of red complexion but said, 'While I was asleep circumambulating the Ka'ba (in my dream), suddenly I saw a man of brown complexion and lank hair walking between two men, and water was dropping from his head. I asked, 'Who is this?' The people said, He is the son of Mary.'". In other words Salim is saying that the other versions are incorrect, or appears to be, though the context of the story is rather different. The others refer to Muhammad meeting Jesus during the Night Journey, but it is not clear what the context of the dream is in the second hadith, which may or may not be the Night Journey. All these should be given. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've altered the text to the best of my abilities, though it would be good to have more detail on debates about translations of specific Arabic words. BTW, the original text was added by an IP in December [3]. Since the sources are clearly edited to intentionally misrepresent both the original hadiths and the secondary source, I consider it to be a bad faith addition. Paul B (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

New Testament Descriptions?

The New Testament includes several descriptions of Jesus' everyday appearance before his death (bronze skin and wooly hair; caucasians were not living in that region during the time of Jesus' birth]])

If such passages actually exist why aren't they cited? Why would you cite someone's opinion of what the bible says instead of the bible itself? Not only does this sentence contradict the rest of this article, it has the appearance of a complete fantasy.

The only part of the Bible that uses the term "wool" in reference to Jesus is Revelations 1:14: His head and his hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire;

The title of this section is "Biblical references" not "Opinions of commentators" so unless you can come up with actual Biblical references this sentence will be deleted.

Also, as for Caucasians not living in the region at that time, it depends on what you mean by Caucasians, there were plenty of Romans there, and there had been for decades! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 23:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

An editor's analysis based upon primary religious sources is prohibited as original research. In Wikipedia most information is verified to reliable sources, in this case meaning publications written by scholars of history and theology. For the balance between theological claims and secular academia see WP:RNPOV. For the use of academic sources in general see WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

How is that relevant? The title of the section is "Biblical references" that implies an actual Biblical reference rather than the mere opinion of a commentator. If there are actual biblical references then where? If they actually existed they would have been cited. This statement is also in direct contradiction to several other statements contained in this article and a Wikipedia article should not contradict itself.

Note the introduction Although the New Testament includes no description of the physical appearance of Jesus before his death and the section Early Church to the Middle Ages which states Despite the lack of direct biblical or historical references, also the section Artistic portrayals states Despite the lack of biblical references or historical records, for two millennia a wide range of depictions of Jesus have appeared .

It is obvious that the editor who inserted the sentence in question is citing questionable sources or is just fabricating things out of thin air, hoping that nobody will check his sources.

When you are discussing the actual text of a document (as opposed to how it is interpreted) the only reliable source is the document itself. Many sources could be cited that misquote the U.S. constitution, for example, but the actual text trumps all such sources when the topic is the actual text itself. There are, of course, many references that can be cited for the fact that the New Testament contains no description of the physical appearance of Jesus before his death, which is why the rest of the article states this verified fact, but it is not up to the skeptics of an edit to prove a negative. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 01:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Further research shows that it is the latter: The editor who inserted that sentence was fabricating things out of thin air and the two citations are on an altogether different topic, belonging to the next paragraph about the transfiguration.

I have found BOTH of these references online, http://sociology.sunimc.net/htmledit/uploadfile/system/20100513/20100513181836263.pdf https://books.google.com/books?id=UNIelnuGATgC&pg=PR4&lpg=PR4&dq=The+Content+and+the+Setting+of+the+Gospel+Tradition+by+Mark+Harding&source=bl&ots=EtY4X7UvJo&sig=QB1RokpBKrXHIqYRsMUhn24qH9k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBmoVChMIwpecl86sxwIVRaKICh02UgN5#v=onepage&q=The%20Content%20and%20the%20Setting%20of%20the%20Gospel%20Tradition%20by%20Mark%20Harding&f=false (the second requires some "fiddling" to get to the pages in question but they are viewable online) both are talking about the appearance of Jesus during the transfiguration, making no reference to his "everyday appearance" either before or after the transfiguration, so it seems obvious that editor didn't even read the references cited and merely lifted them from the next paragraph where they actually belong.

Accordingly, I will edit this sentence to reflect reality, and restore the references to their proper placement. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 03:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The part about "Visage" and Nazarites is quite taken out of context, and seems mistranslated. http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/poly/lam004.htm It seems to be describing the appearance of their faces after punishment. 68.229.3.39 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful?

Hi, "Nicephorus Callistus quoted an unnamed antique source that described Jesus as tall and beautiful with fair, wavy hair, but his account was most likely without basis and was inspired by the prevailing artistic images of Jesus" this is wrong because Jesus in art described as sexy more than handsome or beautiful. The body of Jesus has been the subject of many paintings over the centuries, and showing his masculinity and his slimness where is the gallery in this article? --Fastez (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Race and appearance of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Source wanted

Why people who know full well that Jesus was a Jew think that Jesus was white? I think the explanation is like this: all the Jews I met in my life (knowing they are Jews) are white Caucasians, that's why. Can anyone find a source for this? Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Jesus mother Mary a redhead?

Many older paintings of the Nativity scene show Mary with red hair showing under a blue headscarf. Whether that was due to some artistic convention, re depicting royalty as redheads, I don't know, but if there is any truth to it, it would certainly counter the modern myth that Jesus was a black African. (Many Jews today have red hair.) Another factor is that Galilee was heavily Hellenized under Alexander the Great. It is possible (but unprovable) that Jesus spoke Greek as well as Aramaic. It must be remembered that Paul was a Greek Jew, and the Gospels were first written in Greek. Most people in regions surrounding the western half of the Mediterranean have traditionally been more pigmented than northern Europeans, although the word "olive-skinned" is peculiar, because nobody has green skin. Jesus is depicted in the Gospels as spending a great deal of time outdoors, preaching and walking from town to town, and was likely heavily tanned, regardless of his innate pigmentation. Thus, the modern portayals of Jesus with very light skin cannot be considered accurate. (In particularly, people with extremely light skin tend to get sunburn, rather than a tan, and could not have endured the amount of sunshine that Jesus did in his travels.) None of these points are considered in the article. Another point is the African Israelites movement in the US, who claim that the Biblical Hebrews were racially of sub-Saharan African ancestry; I've read that Jews officially reject this idea, which implies the rejection of the "black Jesus" that these groups promote. Another factor is the longstanding archetype of the "ugly sage", that was part of Greek culture in those times, and also appears in the pre-Christian books of the Bible as well. For example, Socrates was portrayed as being ugly, but wise. So the idea that Jesus was unusually short and unattractive is likely a myth as well. If Jesus had a physical appearance differing greatly from those around him, this would have been noted somewhere; also, in the Gospel accounts of the arrest of Jesus, the Roman soldiers would not have needed help in picking out Jesus from the others. There is no "conclusion", or "summing up" in this article, but it seems to me that, without having a description of him, it is nevertheless reasonable to assume that Jesus was more heavily tanned than the way he is commonly depicted, but not "black", as the African Israelite groups believe. Also, he was likely not remarkably ugly, deformed, nor hunchbacked, as some have claimed. I have no citations for any of this, and haven't the time to attempt to edit the article, but just pointing out some leads that some other contributors might wish to pursue.77Mike77 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


My late Irish mother's father had red hair. My mother's true mother died when my mother was young. Both slaughtered by yew now whew.

Sean Thomas Yearwood

Facial hair

Almost every depiction of "Jesus" shows he had facial hair. Whether or not this was true, shouldn't the facial hair be mentioned somewhere in the lede? Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 08:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This is mostly covered at Depiction of Jesus, though I'm not sure exactly what the line between that article and this should be.--Pharos (talk) 02:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Race and appearance of Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Jesus was not a carpenter.

"Due to Jesus' ascetic and itinerant lifestyle and manual labor as part of his work as a carpenter, some scholars have suggested that he likely had a lean and muscular appearance. His work as a carpenter and exposure to the elements may have given his face a leathery appearance and caused his skin to be weathered and callused. It has even been suggested that due to his work as a craftsman and the high risk of injury of the job, he may have had some type of disfigurement.[10][11][12][13][14]" <---- That is all nonsense, regardless of how "reliable" the sources are, because his father Joseph was the carpenter, not Jesus. Jesus is referred to as "the carpenter's son". (e.g. Matthew 13:55.) Where do people dig up such crazy stuff?77Mike77 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The tradition had that Joseph was a carpenter. The Bible simply says tekton, which could mean construction worker (day laborer). Scholars think that the son of a carpenter/tekton would also have become a carpenter/tekton. Anyway, if it is written in high-quality WP:RS, that's good enough for Wikipedia. We do not second guess mainstream scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
RS? Mainstream scholars? It's opinionated fluff from newspapers, with zero scholarship behind it. Cite me a scholarly reference stating that Jesus built some cupboards or a table. You can't. You are defending the indefensible.77Mike77 (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that at the present moment such sources aren't the best, but the problem of Jesus being a tekton was widely discussed by scholars. See https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=jesus+tekton Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've heard Jesus referred to as "the carpenter", and it is certainly a part of the lore. I just find it very speculative to infer things about his appearance based on that, and it comes across as if there is a consensus view about his appearance, whereas there is no reliable description of him at all. One can reasonably doubt the modern depictions of him, of course.77Mike77 (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

False information as reference to biblical verse

Under Biblical references and under In The Gospels, it states "The New Testament describes Jesus wearing tzitzit - the tassels on a tallit - in Matthew 14:36" ( cited being Matthew 14:46, a non-existent verse). In Matthew 14:36, all that is named is the hem of Jesus's garment. Also "and Luke 8:43-44" being another false reference to tzitzit that wasn't there. Only Jesus's garment is mentioned again. Now, if we look for the original Greek of ἱμάτιον in both verses, translated to garment, it means himation. Wikipedia has an article on himation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himation I'm going to amend the article not to reflect false information, whether accidental or blatant. Admins might decide they don't like this. That doesn't matter to me. Accuracy should be key here. 2605:6000:170D:8432:608B:FC16:CBE3:36B7 (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Jesus was Asian

A whole article about the race and appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, but it never says that he (if he existed) must have been Asian. Or maybe the border of Europe and Asia were different back then, but I don't think Israel was ever part of Europe in any sense and the term "Europe" was used 2500 years ago. Israelites were Asian. This article could also mention that as a half god, he'd only be half human. So what exactly is his species? God-human hybrid? What about the idea that he was an albino? According to the bible he had white hair and eyes like fire (that probably meant red flames from burning wood). And he had "feet the colour of bronze". Maybe he constantly had sunburn on his feet from walking in sandals all the time. Having a beard and wearing a robe he'd have sunburn at his feet, hands and on his forehead. With severe photosensitivity he might even have been bleeding. This would explain his appearance in many pictures bleeding which is associated to his crucifixion.

I know this is all just speculation, but all of this article is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.2.83.132 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The article mentions: It is argued that Jesus was of Middle Eastern descent because of the geographic location of the events described in the Gospels, and, among some modern Christian scholars, the genealogy ascribed to him. (followed by more). As for the flames, it appears to have been claims about his spiritual (i.e. archangel) appearence. —PaleoNeonate – 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The idea that anywhere to the southeast of Europe is "Asia" is a peculiar quirk in the UK that does not exist elsewhere. The Middle East is not considered "Asia". In the rest of the anglosphere, there are "east Asians" (e.g. Chinese), and "south Asians" (e.g. Indians). People from the Middle East are not called "Asians" outside of the UK. Jesus was not Chinese, not from Mumbai, etc., i.e. not Asian. Is Netanyahu Asian? The idea that Jesus was "Asian" is quite ridiculous.77Mike77 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
It's true that people from the Middle East are not commonly called "Asians" in many parts of the world, but they're still in the continent of Asia and thus fall under the definition. This isn't like Greenland where the people are mostly European and the land is in North America, or Russia where the country is split between two continents. They're in Asia. What Anglophone countries dispute this? Prinsgezinde (talk) 07:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Jesus was undoubtedly born in Asia, but describing his origin as "Asian" would be rather too general.--Pharos (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on Moses does not refer to Moses as an "African", even though he was born in Egypt, and therefore the two articles adhere to contradictory guidelines. Common English usage would describe both Jesus and Moses as being from the Middle East, and would not call them an "Asian" and an "African" respectively. If Moses had gone to America, I suppose Wikipedia would call him an "African-American". It is not standard English to identify people by continent. J.S. Bach is called a German composer, not a "European composer".77Mike77 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In England, where presumably standard English is used, people are often identified by continent but in an inconsistent way, and it is usually to avoid indicating race. Thus Sub-Saharan Negroes are always "Africans", but the people of the Maghrib may or may not be. Primarily people from the Indian Sub-Continent, but in particular those from Pakistan, are always "Asians"; but the various peoples from East Asia are now as well so why not those from West Asia as well? The origin for this usage seems to stem from the idea that the many peoples who inhabit the continent of Europe are called "Europeans" and this idea is thus extrapolated for the other continents. However, if this article is about race then there would seem to be no need for the use of English euphemisms.--Rusty Tonic (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Speculation

Obviously this whole article is speculation, but does does anyone know why it says "Jesus probably looked like a typical Judean Jewish man of his time"? Setting aside the question of what a Judean non-Jewish man might have looked like, why not instead say "Jesus probably looked like a typical Aramean man of his time?"--Rusty Tonic (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I would have to agree and say that He would have looked very "generic" for His time and place, whether Aramean, Judean, or (in my opinion) Hebrew. Based on Matthew 1:2-16 (or 1-17) as well as Luke 3:23-38 both state He is a decedent of King David through two different lines, meaning Jesus most definitely would have been very Hebrew in heritage and looks. I could mention a variety of things based on religious views, but as this is scientific work, it would not be the place. Kupferert (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I see no reference of Jesus being described as blonde

What about the description of Jesus having blue eyes and golden hair ? Why isn't this included. He could have been blonde and blue eyes but not necessarily European type but the Jewish type. http://www.thenazareneway.com/likeness_of_our_saviour.htm

Another description of Jesus is found in "The Archko Volume" which contains official court documents from the days of Jesus. This information substantiates that He came from racial lines which had blue eyes and golden hair. In a chapter entitled "Gamaliel's Interview" it states concerning Jesus (Yeshua) appearance:

"I asked him to describe this person to me, so that I might know him if I should meet him. He said: 'If you ever meet him [Yeshua] you will know him. While he is nothing but a man, there is something about him that distinguishes him from every other man. He is the picture of his mother, only he has not her smooth, round face. His hair is a little more golden than hers, though it is as much from sunburn as anything else. He is tall, and his shoulders are a little drooped; his visage is thin and of a swarthy complexion, though this is from exposure. His eyes are large and a soft blue, and rather dull and heavy....' This Jew [Nazarite] is convinced that he is the Messiah of the world. ...this was the same person that was born of the virgin in Bethlehem some twenty-six years before..." TelephoneBaby (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The references you are citing are unanimously regarded as frauds. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Poor quality discussion here

There is a lot of ignorant nonsense on this talk page, which is dispiriting. Can we please have comments from people with expertise in the relevant fields: biblical studies, the history of the Roman Empire in the first century, art history, and so on? PhilG (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Identifying Jesus in order to arrest him

"Among the points made was that the Bible records that Jesus's disciple Judas had to point him out to those arresting him. The implied argument is that if Jesus's physical appearance had differed markedly from his disciples, then he would have been relatively easy to identify.[71]"

This is a very weak argument. Jesus' arrest took place at night, so even by the light of burning torches it would have been difficult to identify him by sight – especially as the soldiers sent to carry out the arrest had probably never seen him before. Hence the need for Judas to indicate who Jesus was by kissing him. PhilG (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, especially on the Roman soldiers part. It’s a pretty immediately obvious moment of trickery. I remember a lot of criticism towards that BBC reconstruction, not just from Christians. Maybe the section can be balanced out with views from that side, especially since facial reconstruction has advanced so much since the early 2000s. Bagabondo (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

The word "race" should be avoided from the title

Race is a social construct that started to being used since 17th centruy, as it has been described here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)

Because of this, it shouldn't be assumed that Jesus belong to any "race", and I find unlikely that phenotypes from that time could be categorized with modern day conceptions. Because of that I think this article should be renamed to just "Appearance of Jesus". --Lobishomen (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, the modern concept of race can be included in the overall discussion but it should be addressed as such. Modern race simply doesn’t fit with ancient people. Bagabondo (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Social construct as it may be, it's a social construct that exists - and, while I see your guys' point from a scholarly perspective - that is, that the question itself somewhat lacks academic merits - what makes it notable is its prevalence in popular discourse. Firejuggler86 (talk) 13:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Not a single 3rd century depiction of Jesus

Every last picture shown on this page is later. Not a single early Roman mosaic is shown. Not the Ravenna mosaics either. it's tragic because all the later depictions are of PAUL not of JESUS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.221.165.118 (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Jewish skulls

Jews have robust calvarias and gentiles have gracile ones.[1] תיל"ם (talk) 13:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jewish Face

As members of the human Race, is there are still those who continue to spread lies about skin tone, knowing clearly that you can still travel to the Middle East and see people living there with the historically typical brown, or dark skin, common to the people of all over the middle East area. Since the take over of the Albinos, (people born with the recessive gene affecting the skin tone) history is being contaminated by the attempt to continue the superiority complex, and misinformation to control and oppress the darker skinned people living in the rest of the world.

I am sure the deception started before the foundation of the Roman Church, who wanted the human to believe since Jesus is the Son of God, everyone should believe he has the recessive gene, thus is white skinned, so every person weak enough to believe that want to look like their God. Now there are products you can buy to lighten your skin, both topically and in pill form that will even change your skin to white.

Why is this so very important... there are speculations that lead us to believe the powers that are ruling and destroying this planet are making efforts to rid the earth of those born with brown, or dark brown skin...(The focus seem to be the dark human of North America, because the people with Black and almost blue skin, seem to be assimilated enough to not pose to be an issue)

Today on earth, hatred is a normal function within the ranks of those who impose rule and control over both the people of North America and some places in Europe; this is going to lead to eventual extermination of the brown skinned people on earth.

The Americana Encyclopedia was open in the late 1960's to early 1970's editions, about the creation of the organization called Illuminati, founded 1776 by Adam Vurship in the Belgium Germany region, he sought to change Governments, by slowly removing certain Morals from the Laws that was too associated with Biblical principles. Its believed that they are responsible for the changes towards certain races and these changes are based in hatred and genocide.

We all must open our eyes and realize that the people of the Middle East are among the first Man created, and before the Birth of Esau, Son of Issac, all men on Earth had Dark Skin, Brown and darker, but it was so important for them to hide that fact, they allowed paintings and images to be created showing our Middle Eastern Brothers and Sisters as White Skinned, Some are even depicting Adam and Eve with White Skinned hoping the uneducated would believe and spread these lies.... In the 10 commandments Exodus chapter 20, the 2nd commandment : Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

But the Roman Church removed the second Commandment from the Roman Catholic Version, in hopes to hide the fact that they had the Gall to change the actual Word of God, to justify the Statues and paintings created to help perpetrate their plan for World Domination using Racism and White Superiority.

The time is past for all men to wake up, watch your fellow man, because like the days of Noah, man filled with his Demon based hatred is seeking to destroy all of us, the Innocent and the guilty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.184.243 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

"Jewishness of Jesus" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jewishness of Jesus and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 21#Jewishness of Jesus until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

What are the "races" known to have been native to the Levant?

The article mentions "races known to have been native to the Levant, " but does not elaborate what those "races" are. Neither does the article the footnote refers to.

What are those "races?" 2600:8806:4808:1700:9FD7:6303:561D:5EED (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Asian Jesus

no mention of Chinese and Korean depictions of Jesus being Asian? 2A00:23C8:8502:8101:7C61:B478:24E:16F5 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Jesus isn’t Black??

everyone ones know he wasn’t white the proof of his skin being like brass and hair like wool your fake picture of Cesar Bourgis son isn’t Jesus Check revelation the proof is and will always been 2607:FEA8:22A2:EA00:E9F4:78C1:7F5B:176C (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the author of the Revelation ever saw Jesus in real life. But, yes, Jesus wasn't white. He wasn't black, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Jesus looked like the average tanned Jew 77.137.73.225 (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Palestinian. "Jew" isn't an ethnicity nor a race (despite a wikipedia article about it), anyone can be Jewish, but he was part of a schism of Judaism that self-proclaimed himself as the messiah. 104.148.186.144 (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_and_appearance_of_Jesus/Archive_4&oldid=1225606974"