Why Must Jesus Be Painted White?

[volgadon]

Yes, I would consider this young man, who I believe was a Sephardic Jew, to be white.  Or more accurately, I should state that he LOOKS white.

 

According to the source of "all light and knowledge" -- Wikipedia -- the Sephardic Jews lived in the Iberian Peninsula (Portugal and modern Spain) before their expulsion in the late 15th century.  Wikipedia also tells us that the migration of these Jews from Palestine to the Iberian Peninsula may have preceded Roman times but certainly, at the latest, occurred during the Roman era.

 

Interestingly, as I understand it, Rembrandt was making a good faith effort to use a more accurate model for a Jewish Jesus.  However, rather than traveling to the Middle East, he used this young man who happened to live in Rembrandt's neighborhood in Holland.  And while this was an improvement over the Scandinavian Jesus that most of his counterparts were painting, Rembrandt didn't seem to take into account what 1,500 years of (even occasional) intermingling with western Europeans might do to one's appearance.

 

For example, more than likely, my ancestors were West Africans who came to America in the slave trade.  However, I don't look like a West African.  The last 400 years of my ancestors intermingling with white Americans has produced a lighter skin tone, a finer grade of hair, a thinner nose, etc.  The same appears true in the case of this man.  He doesn't look like his ancestors from more than a millennium before and certainly, almost nothing like the scientific estimation of Christ's appearance from earlier in this thread.

 

So, to be more precise in answering your inquiry, this is a representation of the Savior that I would categorize as factually inaccurate.  It's better than some of the others but it still misses the mark by quite a bit.

 

Well, compare it to this image.

 

[volgadon]

While these mosaics postdate Jesus by a few centuries, they were found in a site within comfortable walking distance of Nazareth.

 

http://www.biblewalks.com/Sites/SepphorisMosaics.html

 

Would you consider them, too, as white?

 

[mormonnewb]

While these mosaics postdate Jesus by a few centuries, they were found in a site within comfortable walking distance of Nazareth.

 

http://www.biblewalks.com/Sites/SepphorisMosaics.html

 

Would you consider them, too, as white?

 

 

She looks white to me and I don't think I'm the only one who thinks so.  I think that's why she's called the Mona Lisa of the Galilee.

 

"... dubbed 'Mona Lisa' by the press when we found her because she's really an extraordinary depiction in stone of a beautiful woman of Roman antiquity. She might be one of the four seasons. But one has the feeling that behind that face was a real woman and a real figure. Because the artistry that depicts it in stone is so delicate and so exquisite and so painterly. And so she has become kind of synonymous with the site even though she's from the 3rd century, the high point of Hellenization at the site. She has now become synonymous with the Romanization of the site and Hellenization...."

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/sepphoris.html

 

All of that being said, I assume you're trying to make a point, which is?

[CV75]

RE: volgadon's Dura Europos image, #51, here’s something I found interesting in that these “earliest known examples of Jewish art (c. 250 CE)… depict Jewish subjects and predate Christian narrative art by 300 years.” One could say these murals were unduly influenced by Graeco-Roman style and technique, but on the other hand the Duro Europos was a synagogue and the artists would have depicted contemporary Middle Eastern Jews (and not that long after Jesus) without making them out to look like goy.
http://www.jewishartsalon.com/2010/10/dura-europos-project-ancient-site.html
 

Tons more examples (Google dura europos artwork): https://www.google.com/search?q=dura+europos+artwork&sa=X&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGNI_enUS532&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=MyrhUt6oHou_sQTh2IGoCg&ved=0CCQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=882

I think the point can be made that a cohort of Jews in Jesus’ time and place looked much like this (see the Biblical description of King David), and so depictions of Jesus looking like this are not all that unreasonable if one is inclined to approach art with a sense of forensics.

 

It would be interesting to look at the specs for Church-commissioned art depicting the Savior—anyone have access to this?

Edited January 23, 2014 by CV75

[K-2]

BlueDreams, can bright light make brown eyes appear blue?

[thesometimesaint]

Very well said (written)! However, it's very difficult to not assign value to color. It's part of the pattern-seeking thought process that is the cornerstone of human intelligence.

On Sunday, my 9-yo told me that he wanted a new daddy. I took this as a badge of honor that I was doing my job as a parent. That is, until he added, "And, this time, I want a WHITE daddy!"

And he should ...

I'm the only black man that he knows well. We don't have family nearby and there aren't many black people in our neighborhood. His teacher, scout leader, bishop, primary and home teachers are all white. So when he became convinced that I was a bad daddy, he concluded that it was because I'm black. After all, certainly none of the white men in his life would be "so mean" as to take away his xBox.

And he's partly right. His bishop and home teachers would not take away his xBox. Of course, it's not because they're white, but because they're too busy disciplining their own children. However, as a 9 yo, it's easy to make the wrong connection.

I imagine that this is not limited to my son or just 9 yos. I imagine that even an adult who has been raised looking at pictures of a white Jesus and heeding the words of white apostles might come to the conclusion that there is something special about the spirituality of white men.

That's why I think it does matter how we depict Jesus. And no, I'm not suggesting that we alternate between white, black, Asian and Latino Jesuses in an effort to be PC. But on the other hand, I don't see any reason for us to be FI - factually incorrect -- in our depictions of the Savior. We don't inaccurately depict JS as being black for the benefit of the saints in Uganda, so why are we inaccurately depicting Jesus as being white?

I must be missing something. Is there a reason why Jesus must be white? Does it ruin the "whitesome and delightsome" narrative in the BOM? Would it contradict a prior revelation that Jesus was white? Would our friends in the South (Alberta) not be able to handle it?

 

 

Skin color just has never been that big of a deal for me. My bestest friend in early elementary school was from the Philippines, and my favorite boss was black. I sure as heck hate racism, and have little to no tolerance for racists.

 

It doesn't bother me that we tend to see our Savior as the same color as ourselves. We're supposed to have his image in our countenance.   Historically Yeshua bar Yosef would have been Caucasian. In my minds eye his mother probably looked a lot like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sharbat_Gula.jpg

 

White has always been associated with goodness(lack of sin) in the Scriptures. I believe we take that basic concept too far when we apply it to skin color.

[BlueDreams]

BlueDreams, can bright light make brown eyes appear blue?

No. But brown people can have blue eyes. It's not an unheard of trait in middle-eastern populations

Edited January 23, 2014 by BlueDreams

[mormonnewb]

Skin color just has never been that big of a deal for me. My bestest friend in early elementary school was from the Philippines, and my favorite boss was black. I sure as heck hate racism, and have little to no tolerance for racists.

It doesn't bother me that we tend to see our Savior as the same color as ourselves. We're supposed to have his image in our countenance. Historically Yeshua bar Yosef would have been Caucasian. In my minds eye his mother probably looked a lot like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sharbat_Gula.jpg

White has always been associated with goodness(lack of sin) in the Scriptures. I believe we take that basic concept too far when we apply it to skin color.

Three things:

1. I'm not so sure that we all see Jesus as our same color. I never think of Jesus as black and I know that my 9-yo doesn't because he asked me, "When do I get to be white like Jesus?" When I told him that Jesus was actually brown, he was like most of you and didn't believe me. Why would he? He's only seen white Jesuses in pictures.

2. The little Afghan girl in the picture you linked to is famous precisely because her look is RARE in that region. It wouldn't be such a famous photo if you could walk down any Afghan street and find a dozen little girls who looked like that.

3. I'm not sure that it's possible to equate white with purity and then NOT apply it to skin color. In fact, I guess that's why Christian art consistently "whitens" Jesus. How could our Savior not look like the perfection that white symbolizes? And this is why I think it's so problematic.

[wenglund]

Why is Jesus depicted as tall and thin rather than short and fat?

 

Why does he typically not have pimples or moles or other blemishes?

 

Why is his beard typically full and neatly trimmed?

 

Why isn't he balding?

 

Why are his nails cut short?

 

Why aren't his ears ever over-sized?

 

The point being, there are a myriad of relatively inconsequential question that can be raised for whatever reason (be it race-baiting or otherwise), when the question for faithful members of the Church ought to be: How better to come unto Christ and be more like him?

 

At least this is how I see it. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

She looks white to me and I don't think I'm the only one who thinks so.  I think that's why she's called the Mona Lisa of the Galilee.

 

"... dubbed 'Mona Lisa' by the press when we found her because she's really an extraordinary depiction in stone of a beautiful woman of Roman antiquity. She might be one of the four seasons. But one has the feeling that behind that face was a real woman and a real figure. Because the artistry that depicts it in stone is so delicate and so exquisite and so painterly. And so she has become kind of synonymous with the site even though she's from the 3rd century, the high point of Hellenization at the site. She has now become synonymous with the Romanization of the site and Hellenization...."

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/sepphoris.html

 

All of that being said, I assume you're trying to make a point, which is?

 

Honeslty, I think that you are missing the point, as evidenced by your bolding the first half of the phrase, "Roman antiquity," which refers to a time-period, not ethnic identity. Sepphoris still had a Jewish majority, and there is a good, scholarly case to be made for identifying the owner of the house with Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, the redactor of the Mishna. Even if the owners were pagan, they were likelier Syrio-Phoenicians than Romans.

[mormonnewb]

Honeslty, I think that you are missing the point, as evidenced by your bolding the first half of the phrase, "Roman antiquity," which refers to a time-period, not ethnic identity. Sepphoris still had a Jewish majority, and there is a good, scholarly case to be made for identifying the owner of the house with Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, the redactor of the Mishna. Even if the owners were pagan, they were likelier Syrio-Phoenicians than Romans.

Actually, I think I did get the point.

"She has now become synonymous with the Romanization of the site."

Are you arguing that this JEWISH woman is synonymous with the Romanization of the site? Or does it make more sense to say that this Roman woman is synonymous with the ROMANIZATION of the site?

[CV75]

I must be missing something. Is there a reason why Jesus must be white? Does it ruin the "whitesome and delightsome" narrative in the BOM? Would it contradict a prior revelation that Jesus was white? Would our friends in the South (Alberta) not be able to handle it?

I think you may be missing the fact that His mortal skin tone and general appearance may well have been as reported and depicted, unless you factually know without a doubt otherwise. It wouldn't faze me one bit to see a picture of a tanner Jesus (which I suppose at certain times of the year He must have been), and who really knows?

I wouldn't say that He must be white, but I do see that He is most generally painted as a white man.

I think it hasn't much to do with Book of Mormon reference to the Nephites being "white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome," since so many of the depictions are set in the Old World. The "white" of revelatory description has to do with resurrected glory, not hair/skin color per se.

As for your son, if I know 9-year olds, I think his insult might be more a function of knowing which button to push than drawing conclusions about race and righteousness.

[BlueDreams]

RE: volgadon's Dura Europos image, #51, here’s something I found interesting in that these “earliest known examples of Jewish art (c. 250 CE)… depict Jewish subjects and predate Christian narrative art by 300 years.” One could say these murals were unduly influenced by Graeco-Roman style and technique, but on the other hand the Duro Europos was a synagogue and the artists would have depicted contemporary Middle Eastern Jews (and not that long after Jesus) without making them out to look like goy.

http://www.jewishartsalon.com/2010/10/dura-europos-project-ancient-site.html

 

Tons more examples (Google dura europos artwork): https://www.google.com/search?q=dura+europos+artwork&sa=X&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGNI_enUS532&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=MyrhUt6oHou_sQTh2IGoCg&ved=0CCQQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=882

I think the point can be made that a cohort of Jews in Jesus’ time and place looked much like this (see the Biblical description of King David), and so depictions of Jesus looking like this are not all that unreasonable if one is inclined to approach art with a sense of forensics.

 

It would be interesting to look at the specs for Church-commissioned art depicting the Savior—anyone have access to this?

 

You can't use art as a means of forensics. It can be used as a means of getting a better fleshed out picture of the people and their values. There's an apparent connect to roman culture; the ones to commission these would have been wealthy. Ergo the wealthy have ties to Greco-Roman culture in expressing jewish values, culture, and stories. But you can't go much beyond that. These frescos are heavily Greco-Roman. For example, very few of them have anything different than roman hair styles (cropped hair, clean-shaven for men). And even ones that they know would have been a darker brown (such as Egyptians in the moses in the river fresco) are the same tone as the jews depicted. Most of the figures are around the same shape, size, and features. The people aren't there for accuracy. Plus there are a number that do have darker tones. I would look down at my own light brown skin and some of the frescoes are darker than me. Whether they generally were or weren't, I can't easily say....not from a painting of that time where skin was generally not the way to distinguish group differences in art. 

 

with luv,

BD    

Edited January 23, 2014 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

Three things:

1. I'm not so sure that we all see Jesus as our same color. I never think of Jesus as black and I know that my 9-yo doesn't because he asked me, "When do I get to be white like Jesus?" When I told him that Jesus was actually brown, he was like most of you and didn't believe me. Why would he? He's only seen white Jesuses in pictures.

2. The little Afghan girl in the picture you linked to is famous precisely because her look is RARE in that region. It wouldn't be such a famous photo if you could walk down any Afghan street and find a dozen little girls who looked like that.

3. I'm not sure that it's possible to equate white with purity and then NOT apply it to skin color. In fact, I guess that's why Christian art consistently "whitens" Jesus. How could our Savior not look like the perfection that white symbolizes? And this is why I think it's so problematic.

 

It is just a tendency. http://photobucket.com/images/black%20jesus?page=1

 

We tend to be heavily influenced by our cultural surroundings. That is a hard concept for 9 year old's to understand. The US is still largely a white European culture, though demographics are changing that.

 

She's not particularly rare. Despite decades of obscene abuse by the Taliban the Afghan's are a beautiful people.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Afghan+young+women&client=firefox-a&hs=Ah5&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=71rhUtj_MdPYoAT1iIFY&ved=0CDYQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=568

 

I've seen the paintings of those large muscular Nephite women. But seriously Jesus was a Caucasian, just not a northern European one, whether someone accepts him as their Savior or not. For better or worse Christianity survived in Europe. So it is going to be heavily influenced by that fact of history. On a personal note I'm darker than my sibs. They'll sunburn easily while I just get a nice tan. OTOH my sister has never had a cavity in any of her teeth, while my teeth are all crowned or capped. Just luck of the genetic dice toss. But we're all family and love each other.

 

To give any spiritual meaning to skin color is by definition racist. Forgivable in young children, in adults not so much. Teach your young son that all are alike unto God and he'll be OK.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Perhaps, someone can help me understand why we continue with our historically inaccurate depictions of a white Jesus. Certainly, the church officials who commission this art must know that Jesus was from PALESTINE and therefore, must have looked like his Middle Eastern kinsfolk. So why do they allow this discrepancy? They certainly wouldn't allow for a scene in which Jesus was depicted as being Chinese or say, wearing blue jeans or listening to an iPod?

Therefore, I assume that there is a reason for this "artistic license." There must be something about our doctrine/policies/folklore that requires us to pretend that Jesus was from Belgium.

What is it?

Let me tell you about the Southern Matriarch...my grandmother collected religious art. These painting or reproductions always reflected cultural norms we see today. When my cousin Tracy went on a service mission for another Church in One of the islands. He met a beautiful young black woman and fell in love. Every Sunday, every member of a very large family would come to dinner. Keep in mind, I am from the old South. I was serving in West Germany at the time, so my mother writes to tell me, of the exchange. So all her 9 Children were there with my 9,000 cousins and the issue was addressed, as everyone looked to Grandma Lee. She sat quiet for a few mins and then said..."well she is Christian"? Tracy's mother says "yes she is"...issue over!

In short "Art" is not doctrine.

[mormonnewb]

Why is Jesus depicted as tall and thin rather than short and fat?

 

Why does he typically not have pimples or moles or other blemishes?

 

Why is his beard typically full and neatly trimmed?

 

Why isn't he balding?

 

Why are his nails cut short?

 

Why aren't his ears ever over-sized?

 

The point being, there are a myriad of relatively inconsequential question that can be raised for whatever reason (be it race-baiting or otherwise), when the question for faithful members of the Church ought to be: How better to come unto Christ and be more like him?

 

At least this is how I see it. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Wade, have you not noticed that just about every thread on this board deals with a "relatively inconsequential question"?  In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find more than a few threads that deal with "How better to come unto Christ and be more like him?"  So, I'm not sure why you're even bringing this point up (be it race-baiting or otherwise).

 

As for the triviality of skin color, I think the push back I've received on this thread is evidence that skin color is not so trivial.  If I had argued that we should lengthen Jesus' fingernails in the paintings, would anyone have even bothered to respond; nevertheless, find references for me to argue for shorter fingernails?  Of course not.  It wouldn't be worth the time or effort.  But skin color is a big deal, particularly in THIS Church.

 

For most of our history, we've employed overtly racist policies.  We justified those policies on the inherent accursedness or unworthiness of certain darker peoples and bolstered claims of white superiority with the "delightsomeness of whitesomeness."  And if you think that I'm unnecessarily drudging up past events, the Church itself has addressed them in recent statements.  I suspect that part of the reason for doing so is to correct misconceptions that have arisen throughout the years.  Well, here is simply another corrective action the Church can take -- to accurately portray the Savior so that our precious 9 year olds don't accidentally come to the conclusion that there is a special connection between white skin and holiness.

 

And this would be wrong because?

[thesometimesaint]

Wade, have you not noticed that just about every thread on this board deals with a "relatively inconsequential question"?  In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find more than a few threads that deal with "How better to come unto Christ and be more like him?"  So, I'm not sure why you're even bringing this point up (be it race-baiting or otherwise).

 

As for the triviality of skin color, I think the push back I've received on this thread is evidence that skin color is not so trivial.  If I had argued that we should lengthen Jesus' fingernails in the paintings, would anyone have even bothered to respond; nevertheless, find references for me to argue for shorter fingernails?  Of course not.  It wouldn't be worth the time or effort.  But skin color is a big deal, particularly in THIS Church.

 

For most of our history, we've employed overtly racist policies.  We justified those policies on the inherent accursedness or unworthiness of certain darker peoples and bolstered claims of white superiority with the "delightsomeness of whitesomeness."  And if you think that I'm unnecessarily drudging up past events, the Church itself has addressed them in recent statements.  I suspect that part of the reason for doing so is to correct misconceptions that have arisen throughout the years.  Well, here is simply another corrective action the Church can take -- to accurately portray the Savior so that our precious 9 year olds don't accidentally come to the conclusion that there is a special connection between white skin and holiness.

 

And this would be wrong because?

 

The Church was wrong on the rationalizations for the Priesthood Ban for black male members. I personally never agreed with any of the rationalizations. So I can't and won't make any arguments for some members overtly racist thinking/speeches, other than to say forgive us for we talked out of our own ignorance.

 

Given that the historical Yeshua bar Yosef was in all likelihood Caucasoid, and you want an accurate representation of what he looked like, exactly how is the Church to accomplish your goal?

 

Teach your precious 9 year old son that all are alike unto God. That regardless of skin color we are all Children of the most high God. That by keeping his commandments we become the Children of Christ.

Edited January 23, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[CV75]

You can't use art as a means of forensics. It can be used as a means of getting a better fleshed out picture of the people and their values. There's an apparent connect to roman culture; the ones to commission these would have been wealth. Ergo the wealth have ties to Greco-Roman culture in expressing jewish values, culture, and stories. But you can't go much beyond that. These frescos are heavily Greco-Roman. For example, very few of them have anything different than roman hair styles (cropped hair, clean-shaven for men). And even ones that they know would have been a darker brown (such as Egyptians in the moses in the river fresco) are the same tone as the jews depicted. Most of the figures are around the same shape, size, and features. The people aren't there for accuracy. Plus there are a number that do have darker tones. I would look down at my own light brown skin and some of the frescoes are darker than me. Whether they generally were or weren't, I can't easily say....not from a painting of that time where skin was generally not the way to distinguish group differences in art. 

 

with luv,

BD

True, art is not forensics, but as you can see, this thread uses the premise that art should be approached (rightly or not) with a sense of forensics in the interest of preventing inaccuracy and subsequent misconclusions that go further than skin deep. The variety of skin tones in the depictions of 1st - 3rd century Jews for the synagogue's artwork (I would say commissioned by wealthy ethnic Jews and not gentile converts) allows that Jesus could well have been as white as many artists have depicted Him. In the case of the links I provided, the artists used Graeco-Roman style and technique (not models) in depicting ethnic Jews -- but even if not, the ethnic Roman/Greek has as much variation in appearance as the Jew! They depicted the Jews (or Greeks and Romans modeling as Jews, or convert Jews) of the day, in lighter and darker skin tones. As a Jew, Jesus could have been either lighter or darker in tone, so being depicted as lighter (or darker) is not somehow forensically improper--should people decide to go there. Edited January 23, 2014 by CV75

[mormonnewb]

True, art is not forensics, but as you can see, this thread uses the premise that art should be approached (rightly or not) with a sense of forensics in the interest of preventing inaccuracy and subsequent misconclusions that go further than skin deep. The variety of skin tones in the depictions of 1st - 3rd century Jews for the synagogue's artwork (I would say commissioned by wealthy ethnic Jews and not gentile converts) allows that Jesus could well have been as white as many artists have depicted Him. In the case of the links I provided, the artists used Graeco-Roman style and technique (not models) in depicting ethnic Jews -- but even if not, the ethnic Roman/Greek has as much variation in appearance as the Jew! They depicted the Jews (or Greeks and Romans modeling as Jews, or convert Jews) of the day, in lighter and darker skin tones. As a Jew, Jesus could have been either lighter or darker in tone, so being depicted as lighter (or darker) is not somehow forensically improper--should people decide to go there.

 

So because Jesus COULD have had a lighter skin tone, we should ALWAYS depict Him as being light beige (or white)?  Under your reasoning, shouldn't Jesus be dark in about half of our paintings?  Or do we simply err on the side of white, just be to "safe"?

 

And let's be clear.  We're not just talking about skin tone but also, changing His facial features.  Our depictions of Christ are not "light-skinned" Palestinians.  They have Northern European noses, lips, eyes, etc.  Even if I accept that Jesus COULD have been fair-skinned (which I find unlikely), he almost certainly didn't have a Swedish nose.

[CV75]

Well, here is simply another corrective action the Church can take -- to accurately portray the Savior so that our precious 9 year olds don't accidentally come to the conclusion that there is a special connection between white skin and holiness.

How does anyone know that less-white means more accurate? Where theories about "a special connection between white skin and holiness" have been formally disavowed and racism in any form unequivocally condemned, if the faithful take heed both accidental and purposeful misconclusions are avoided or correcetd if they arise.

[CV75]

So because Jesus COULD have had a lighter skin tone, we should ALWAYS depict Him as being light beige (or white)?  Under your reasoning, shouldn't Jesus be dark in about half of our paintings?  Or do we simply err on the side of white, just be to "safe"?

 

And let's be clear.  We're not just talking about skin tone but also, changing His facial features.  Our depictions of Christ are not "light-skinned" Palestinians.  They have Northern European noses, lips, eyes, etc.  Even if I accept that Jesus COULD have been fair-skinned (which I find unlikely), he almost certainly didn't have a Swedish nose.

I did not say that we should ALWAYS depict Jesus a certain way, but that the convention has a reasonable basis, and since He COULD have had a lighter skin tone permits such a depiction. I'm not one to tell an arist what to do--ever try that?!?! Actually, I would like to see the specs for any work commissioned by the Church as that might shed some light on the matter.

I googled Swedish nose and didn't get anything. But I did Google Mesopotamian / Middle East busts and got a lot of images that look an awful lot like Max von Sydow!

[mormonnewb]

Teach your precious 9 year old son that all are alike unto God. That regardless of skin color we are all Children of the most high God. That by keeping his commandments we become the Children of Christ.

 

I'm trying to teach him just that, but my beloved Church isn't making it easy when he is constantly shown that the most holy and pure of God's children (first, Christ and then His apostles) are WHITE.

 

Once again, it would be one thing if Jesus was actually white or even likely so.  In that case, I would be asking the Church to re-write history for the sake of my "PC sensibilities."  But I'm simply asking for a TRUTHFUL representation of Christ's most likely appearance (the appearance of the people who have lived in this area uninterrupted from His time until now -- the current Palestinians).

 

How about this as a compromise then?  Let's portray Jesus as being green in our artwork.  That way, none of us will form the mistaken impression that we are superior/inferior to others due to our likeness to the Savior.  After all, if my children have to learn that he can be Christ-like without looking like him, then why shouldn't yours?

[mormonnewb]

I did not say that we should ALWAYS depict Jesus a certain way, but that the convention has a reasonable basis, and since He COULD have had a lighter skin tone permits such a depiction. I'm not one to tell an arist what to do--ever try that?!?! Actually, I would like to see the specs for any work commissioned by the Church as that might shed some light on the matter.

 

So your contention is that the Church gives its artists complete carte blanche and by some extraordinary coincidence, none of its artists have ever submitted a brown Jesus?  I find that hard to believe.

 

The Church just doesn't accept anything that an artists submits; nor should it.  Otherwise, it would run the risk of an artist "going all Maplethorpe" on us.  In that case, I am CERTAIN that the Church wouldn't just say, "Well, we're not one to tell an artist what to do -- ever try that?!?!"

[mormonnewb]

How does anyone know that less-white means more accurate?

 

Because we know what the people of current day Palestine look like and very few of them look like this:

 

[volgadon]

Because we know what the people of current day Palestine look like and very few of them look like this:

 

 

That is part of your problem. The ethnic makeup of the region has changed a little since Late Antiquity.