Why Must Jesus Be Painted White?

[volgadon]

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?

 

No, what you are saying doesn't make sense. I have a little familiarity with Sepphoris. My friends were friends with one of the archaeologists heading the dig in the early 90s, which uncovered the mosaics. During her summer break, my mom took my siblings and me to help in the dig. I've been to it many times throughout the years, and have read extensively on the topic. The Romanization discussed in your link refers to the cultural and artistic norms of a Hellenistic/Roman city in Late Antiquity being adopted on a large scale by the Jewish majority. There were very few ethnic Romans in the area, too.

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

 

So I've been thinking about this a bit. First I don't think I can say that I've put a special spirituality of white men because I've grown up with white apostles or white-euro Jesus. But I do believe having people in roles of authority and influence of color is important.  But I find it more important on the small and immediate influence....such as on the ward and stake level. I don't know, I certainly don't think white people have something extra spiritual. Who knows, maybe it's having plenty of white family to have direct comparison to. Or having seen minorities as important ward/stake leaders. Or, who knows. But I don't think that message is gaining too much traction. I also do believe that stereotypical expectations for behavior can occur in the church.  

 

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?

 

No it doesn't do anything to the white and delightsome narrative. And frankly, I don't think a number would notice if JC was more accurately depicted (ie, at least not looking like he hales from western Europe). For example some of J Kirk Richards' depiction of Christ has him at least looking a little more tanner, especially his abstracts. The rest really is tradition and personal style. Painting is personal and artists fall into patterns of depiction of figures based on both the market they're selling to and who they are and who they know that'll model. So for example Richards is all over the place when it comes to style from more murky and abstracted to sharp and with contrasting lighting. The skin varies to match or contrast as he pleases. All of his figures are based on white people. Why? It's his niche. He grew up in provo, UT. He's white. The people he depicts are white, because they're easy for him to paint and he often paints with no models in sight. Rose Datoc Dall has more diverse figures for her paintings. Why? She's Filipina and grew up around DC.

 

I paint mostly brown people. In my living room currently there's a mixed child with ambiguous feature, a geisha, two African oriented pieces, and a mixed baby. In my bedroom is a portrait of a racially ambiguous woman breastfeeding an equally ambiguous baby. One is an almost finished abstract symbolizing A+E and the POS influenced by more primitive painting styles. Part of this is available models. I'm available for me. So when I was a teen my paintings often looked a lot like me or were me. Part of it is who I've often given these pieces to (minorities). Part of it is that I'm in love with color and brown skin now just comes really easily to paint and I'm good at it. Part of it is that I'm mixed and painting is still partially and expression of how you view the world. If I painted Christ (not planning on it) he would probably come off with at least a solid tan though he'd most likely look whitish. Why? It's the image I'm used to seeing...even though the church specifically wouldn't be clamoring for my piece. Nothing more. 

 

It's not about contradicting established doctrine, it really truly is far more simple and yet complex than that. Most of the people painting the paintings are white people with limited access to diverse peoples (inside the church) and a long traditional aspect of a white, european Christ image dominating the culture, LONG before Mormonism came around.

 

With luv,

BD

[volgadon]

(the appearance of the people who have lived in this area uninterrupted from His time until now -- the current Palestinians).

 

 

 

The situation is a little more complicated than that. Some Palestinians are certainly the same population that existed in Canaanite times, but a good deal more come from various other groups like the Syro-Phoenicians, and the Edomites, as well as subsequent migrations including Arabs, Persians, Turks, Circassians, and Sudanese.

[DJBrown]

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?

 

Two issues: 1) was Jesus physically beautiful and; 2) what color was His skin?

 

1)  I do not interpret the Isaiah passage as meaning He was not a beautiful person, physically.  I see it as stating that His dress and the way He kept Himself was not different than others- like with a king who dresses extravagantly or a manner that attracts notice.  If one considers who His parents were, I think it is hard to believe He was not truly beautiful.  Nephi describes Mary as "fair and beautiful above all other virgins."  And His Father is God the Father.  I think His features were probably very beautiful and pure.  But I think He dressed as a common man.

 

2)  I cannot remember where I found the article, but I read a few years ago an article that suggested that there was as much variety in the Jewish "look" or skin color, eye color, etc. in the days of Jesus as there is today among Jews or Americans.  Ultimately I don't think it matters all that much for us today.  But I also don't think it is unrealistic to depict Christ in the manner that we typically see in church paintings.  

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

Good for you. You'll do fine and your son will turn out all right. My oldest Granddaughter is 20 years old. So I'm well past the age of instructing my children on matters of skin color.

 

He and his first Apostles were most likely Caucasian. I don't put any spiritual value on that simple fact. Quite frankly I don't agree with any one that does, never have.

 

Artistic license is a strange thing.  Would it bother me if the Church started putting up paintings of a black Jesus, or even a Palestinian one?. No, but for the sake of historical accuracy they probably won't be putting up a black one any time soon. Though I really doubt the current Leaders give much thought to that. My guess would be that it is far and away more important that Jesus is the Christ, Savior of the world, than any skin color debate.

 

I haven't seen many green people lately. So green is probably out of the picture. I'd be fine with various shades of brown however.

 

We're ALL supposed to have a Christ like countenance. I don't believe that has anything to do with skin color.

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

No. I doubt that Jesus looks like he's straight out of western Europe. He could have been paler than your average Judah. But he was also a wandering man, who spent inordinate amount of time in the sun. Even white people look browner than he usually does when they get a tan. I'm not saying that accurate depictions are necessary. They're not. But I'm not going to pretend that the vast majority of LDS paintings of him are likely accurate (especially when they all look about the same: medium-light brown hair, light skin, beard, long nose, sturdy well defined face, repeat...for variation, change the eye color). Or that the art back then will give an accurate idea of what he looked like though or gives credence to how we depict him isn't very feasible either. It's not how this type of ancient art ran. They made images that were idealistic or accustomed to their time. For example look up ehtiopian Christian art and then look up ehtiopians. Again. We cannot assume that even though ethnic jews most likely commissioned and made these that they're accurate in depiction when everything, including at times the clothes, have obvious Greco-Roman tastes.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 23, 2014 by BlueDreams

[CV75]

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?!?!"

I am not contending anything; I would like to see the specs. I am however countering your claims with evidecne to the contrary.

My comment about (not) telling artists what to do was in reference to commissioned art since Jesus has been customarily depicted as various shades of white by many over centuries. At any rate, I'm not sure who would just submit artwork to the Church for its consideration; maybe that happens.

And in the links I provided, even Middle Eastern Jews can look like your stereotypical Swede.

[CV75]

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

 

I can't get this link, but I think volgadon is an expert on the subject.

[CV75]

No. I doubt that Jesus looks like he's straight out of western Europe. He could have been paler than your average Judah. But he was also a wandering man, who spent inordinate amount of time in the sun. Even white people look browner than he usually does when they get a tan. I'm not saying that accurate depictions are necessary. They're not. But I'm not going to pretend that the vast majority of LDS paintings of him are likely accurate (especially when they all look about the same: medium-light brown hair, light skin, beard, long nose, sturdy well defined face, repeat...for variation, change the eye color). Or that the art back then will give an accurate idea of what he looked like though or gives credence to how we depict him isn't very feasible either. It's not how this type of ancient art ran. They made images that were idealistic or accustomed to their time. For example look up ehtiopian Christian art and then look up ehtiopians. Again. We cannot assume that even though ethnic jews most likely commissioned and made these that they're accurate in depiction when everything, including at times the clothes, have obvious Greco-Roman tastes.

 

With luv,

BD

As you can see, everyone has his own idea of what Jesus might have looked like. Some evidently think they know what He did and didn't look like; or should or shouldn't have looked like. Personally, I don't know what He looked like, and any respectfuil depiction goes as far as I'm concerned. You seem to attribute some of this to what the artist has available to work with, his experience, traditions, historical descriptions, etc. Frankly, a good part of the statues originating from Mesopotamia and Middle East (both ancient and modern) could easily pass for Western Europeans (both ancient and modern), at least to me.

My arguments are to counter the notion that others' reasonable, good-faith ideas or aceptance of what Jesus might have looked like as a white man of a certain visage should not be tolerated, as synonymous with disavowing incorrect theories about race and the priesthood and condemning racism in all its forms.

Edited January 23, 2014 by CV75

[mormonnewb]

My arguments are to counter the notion that others' reasonable, good-faith ideas or aceptance of what Jesus might have looked like as a white man of a certain visage should not be tolerated, as synonymous with disavowing incorrect theories about race and the priesthood and condemning racism in all its forms.

 

The question is whether the idea of a white Jesus is reasonable and in good-faith.  I just don't know how reasonable it is to assume that a 1st century Jew in Palestine looked like Jesus in the preceding post.  Is it possible?  Perhaps.  But it's also possible that Jesus wore a kilt or had a mohawk.  Yet, I wouldn't consider the idea that Jesus wore a kilt as being one that was "reasonable" or in "good-faith" unless there was some REALLY good evidence to support it being a substantial likelihood (as opposed to a remote possibility).

 

Given what historians tell us about the place and time of Jesus' birth and given what we currently observe about the people of that area, it is MOST likely that he had olive skin and semitic features.  So why wouldn't we go with the most likely representation of a 1st century Jew in Palestine?

 

No one knows for sure what Confucius looked like, and there are various depictions of him in art.  Yet, in just about all of them, he is depicted as being CHINESE.  If I said that I believed he had red hair, freckles and spoke with an Irish accent, would anyway say that my belief was in "good-faith" or that it was "reasonable"?  Of course not.  In fact, even if I could point to the existence of Irish settlers in China at the time, I would still need something more to conclude that Confucius was a member of this small ethnic minority.

 

So what makes you believe that Jesus LIKELY looked white?

[wenglund]

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).

 

Yes...the o'l "everyone one else is doing it" defense. Very impressive.

 

Well, I will leave you, and others who wish, to brave this "skin color" tempest in a teapot. Don't let me get in the way of racially sensitive agenda.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tacenda]

Well JS saw him, where's his description?

[mormonnewb]

If I remember correctly, JS described him as a white man.  However, I'm not so sure that we can reasonably conclude the JS saw Jesus in His earthly form.  Shortly after the resurrection, Jesus walked with two of his followers on the road to Emmaus and neither one recognized Him as Jesus.  

Luke 24:13-35

 

It stands to reason that HF and Jesus would have appeared to JS in forms that he would recognize.

[mormonnewb]

Yes...the o'l "everyone one else is doing it" defense. Very impressive.

 

Well, I will leave you, and others who wish, to brave this "skin color" tempest in a teapot. Don't let me get in the way of racially sensitive agenda.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Is there something wrong with a "racially sensitive agenda?"  Should we as saints strive to be racially INSENSITIVE?  Given our past history, I really don't think that our problem has been oversensitivity on the issue of race.

[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?

Something I did not mention eailer...for those who believe in Christ and follow his teaching there is a singular race, and a singular citizenship. In the BoM, the happiest people who had ever been created by the hand of God, were those who had all things common, and no divisions. Man is the one who cannot seem to get beyond this issue. We "will" be that happy when we no longer see division. Those who do not get over it in this life will never understand in the next. So "God willing" we will live long enough to get over earthly issues, while still living on the earth, and not under it.

[CV75]

The question is whether the idea of a white Jesus is reasonable and in good-faith.  I just don't know how reasonable it is to assume that a 1st century Jew in Palestine looked like Jesus in the preceding post.  Is it possible?  Perhaps.  But it's also possible that Jesus wore a kilt or had a mohawk.  Yet, I wouldn't consider the idea that Jesus wore a kilt as being one that was "reasonable" or in "good-faith" unless there was some REALLY good evidence to support it being a substantial likelihood (as opposed to a remote possibility).

 

Given what historians tell us about the place and time of Jesus' birth and given what we currently observe about the people of that area, it is MOST likely that he had olive skin and semitic features.  So why wouldn't we go with the most likely representation of a 1st century Jew in Palestine?

 

No one knows for sure what Confucius looked like, and there are various depictions of him in art.  Yet, in just about all of them, he is depicted as being CHINESE.  If I said that I believed he had red hair, freckles and spoke with an Irish accent, would anyway say that my belief was in "good-faith" or that it was "reasonable"?  Of course not.  In fact, even if I could point to the existence of Irish settlers in China at the time, I would still need something more to conclude that Confucius was a member of this small ethnic minority.

 

So what makes you believe that Jesus LIKELY looked white?

The idea of a white Jesus is reasonable and in good faith when the person holding the idea is reasonable and acting in good faith. You'll have to search your own heart on that one.

 

Are you sure you’re not stereotyping a preconceived image when you say “Chinese?” There are some five dozen Chinese ethnic groups to choose from, and not all appear to have features exclusive to the “Asian race.” Look at all the portraits of Confucius and you will see a great deal of variation, such that some features can be attributed to just about any race, and if you didn’t already know his origin, you might not correctly ascertain that he was of a particular group, or even Chinese.

 

The same variation exists among pictures of Jews, including Jesus, which appear to have any of the broad variety of features found within the “Caucasian race” (all of which I consider “white,” so yes, I do believe that Jesus likely “looked white,” and consider that I do so to be reasonable and in good faith). Of course this may not be acceptable to those who hold more rigid racial requirements and expectations for what others think.

 

As far as the Church goes, I estimate I've seen several varieties of Caucasoid features used in artistic representations of the Lord in various official settings.

[BlueDreams]

As you can see, everyone has his own idea of what Jesus might have looked like. Some evidently think they know what He did and didn't look like; or should or shouldn't have looked like. Personally, I don't know what He looked like, and any respectfuil depiction goes as far as I'm concerned. You seem to attribute some of this to what the artist has available to work with, his experience, traditions, historical descriptions, etc. Frankly, a good part of the statues originating from Mesopotamia and Middle East (both ancient and modern) could easily pass for Western Europeans (both ancient and modern), at least to me.

 

Frankly, most statues I've seen are abstracted and without any color making it pretty difficult to indicate how well they could or couldn't pass per se. They could pass for white, but they could also pass for bearded aliens. That's my main point, you can't assume they would really pass for white (generally... some I'm sure probably would) or anything else based on their artwork. And that's really my only point on this

 

 

My arguments are to counter the notion that others' reasonable, good-faith ideas or aceptance of what Jesus might have looked like as a white man of a certain visage should not be tolerated, as synonymous with disavowing incorrect theories about race and the priesthood and condemning racism in all its forms.

 

Sorry, I'm really not following you on this. What are you stating?

 

With luv,

BD

[wenglund]

Is there something wrong with a "racially sensitive agenda?"  Should we as saints strive to be racially INSENSITIVE?  Given our past history, I really don't think that our problem has been oversensitivity on the issue of race.

 

Perhaps it is just me, but I view ruminating and obsessing over color issues as in direct conflict with Dr. King's dream of a nation where people don't judge each other based on skin color, but on the content of their character. As I see things, it is more than a little difficult to become color blind by focusing a lot on color.

 

But, I understand that people think differently from me. I may chose to realize King's dream by being mindful of character, and view the world as the gospel would have--where there are no "Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all." (See HERE)

 

And, I reserve to others the right to chose to fulfill their own agenda by being mindful of skin color.

 

To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2014 by wenglund

[volgadon]

We cannot assume that even though ethnic jews most likely commissioned and made these that they're accurate in depiction when everything, including at times the clothes, have obvious Greco-Roman tastes.

 

 

 

For one, it was a communal effort to build, decorate, and maintain the synagogue. Two, Jews had no distinct clothing. They dressed either according to Greco-Roman or Parthian fashions. As Yigael Yadin observed, the main difference was in the material, not the appearance of the clothes.

[BlueDreams]

For one, it was a communal effort to build, decorate, and maintain the synagogue. Two, Jews had no distinct clothing. They dressed either according to Greco-Roman or Parthian fashions. As Yigael Yadin observed, the main difference was in the material, not the appearance of the clothes.

Thanks for the clarification. I would also correct, after looking around for more info that the great google also leans to short hair for the time. So I'd change that up to.

 

Other opinions I found basically stated what I would expect: unknown.

 

 

The three I found most interesting are: this, this, and this. I would still remain with my main point that looking at the art of the time is not a good way to get a good idea of what the people looked like at that time.

 

With luv,

BD

[thesometimesaint]

Thanks for the clarification. I would also correct, after looking around for more info that the great google also leans to short hair for the time. So I'd change that up to.

 

Other opinions I found basically stated what I would expect: unknown.

 

 

The three I found most interesting are: this, this, and this. I would still remain with my main point that looking at the art of the time is not a good way to get a good idea of what the people looked like at that time.

 

With luv,

BD

 

True, but that comes with limits. Race was more closely tied to what we'd today call a nation, or a people, than skin color per say.

[CV75]

Frankly, most statues I've seen are abstracted and without any color making it pretty difficult to indicate how well they could or couldn't pass per se. They could pass for white, but they could also pass for bearded aliens. That's my main point, you can't assume they would really pass for white (generally... some I'm sure probably would) or anything else based on their artwork. And that's really my only point on this

 I know—I Googled “mesopotamian busts” and “middle eastern busts” and got a ton of images that support my point, and also believe your point without having to choose only one or the other. That said, I'd was going to post (as a joke) some photos of people with the ability to make their eyes pop out just like these statues, but they are copyrighted.

 

Sorry, I'm really not following you on this. What are you stating?

RE: “My arguments are to counter the notion that others' reasonable, good-faith ideas or aceptance of what Jesus might have looked like as a white man of a certain visage should not be tolerated, as synonymous with disavowing incorrect theories about race and the priesthood and condemning racism in all its forms.”

I don’t disagree with your comments on forensics and ancient art and their context simply because I do not see them in conflict with my view—sometimes particular art samples say what you say they mean, and sometimes they say what I say they mean.

But some of the arguments in this thread that I do disagree with are: 1) artistic interpretations of a Caucasoid Jesus are not reasonable or made in good faith; 2) Jesus could not have been a “white man”; 3) there is only one narrow way that Jesus could have looked as a Jew from Galilee during His lifetime; 4) “White” means “Western European”; and 5) that stereotypes of Irish, Swede, West African and Chinese (there may have been other) phenotypes were used to support these ideas. These points were used to defend the call to redesign Christological artwork currently used by the Church as proof and enforcement of the Church’s disavowal of incorrect theories about race and the priesthood and its condemnation of racism in all its forms.

Edited January 24, 2014 by CV75

[wenglund]

Again. We cannot assume that even though ethnic jews most likely commissioned and made these that they're accurate in depiction when everything, including at times the clothes, have obvious Greco-Roman tastes.

 

Not to put too fine a point on what you said, the same, in principle, holds true in our day. I doubt that any of us look exactly like this:

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 24, 2014 by wenglund

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not to put too fine a point on what you said, the same, in principle, holds true in our day. I doubt that any of us look exactly like this:

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I dunno that first picture looks an aweful lot like me.

[BlueDreams]

Not to put too fine a point on what you said, the same, in principle, holds true in our day. I doubt that any of us look exactly like this:

 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Hey now, no need to make fun of your aunts like that. Thumper's mom said it isn't cool. 

 

With luv,

BD