Why is jesus always portrayed as a white european?

Question

Isn't it more likely he was one of thoes swarthy arab types, with an eye patch, and a curved dagger in his belt?

Answer 1

DON'T!!!!! be silly. Of course everyone knows he was very unlikely to be anything other than middle eastern. Doh!!!

Answer 2

As he was a Jew, and not an Arab, he would not be 'with a curved dagger in His belt' Actually, we should not attempt to picture Him at all, as this is against God's rules re: idolatry. This is one of the reasons His appearance is not described in the Bible. Unfortunately, people love to be able to see something in order to bow to it, or walk round it, stone it, etc. (think the Haj). So we end up with artist's impressions of what they think Jesus looked like, and as the artists were white Europeans drawing for white Europeans (and, later, white Americans), Jesus was depicted having European features, even down to blonde hair and blue eyes in one post-WWII children's Bible I saw.
Suffice to say, that as the Hebrew peoples are generally of lighter skin than the desert-dwelling Arabs, that Jesus would likely have been a tanned, weather-beaten and younger Dustin Hoffman type, or similar to the Armenians and non-Arab Iranians (from which Hitler got the Aryan Ideal).

Don't forget, though, that it wouldn't matter if Jesus were black: all that matters is that He was God the Son, He died on the cross for everyone, He rose on the third day to prove He had beaten death, and He holds out the promise to save you, if you take Him as God, Lord and Saviour before you lose the chance forever. And don't put it off til another day, for you never know how long you'll live.
May God bless you if you search for Him.

Answer 3

However, he is usually presented to represent every man. In the Oriental countries, he has oriental features. There is a black Catholic Church in Chicago with a large black man on a crucifix.

But most of our religious art comes from Europe and he is presented as a European in those pictures.

I doubt if he would have an eye patch and a curved dagger in his belt. This was not typical of all desert people. You have been watching too many movies.

Answer 4

Because it would be racist to portray him as a dark nomadic arab type of person, which he probably was......also politically incorrect to some degree I wouldn't wonder.
Otherwise it might be something to do with the ignorance of the early bible publishers.......or the painters commissioned by the western churches.
Perhaps he was white! A sort of throw back gene thing......no doubt picked up in the early egyptian labour camps.
Does it matter? Surely what he said is what Christianity is all about......... not what he looked like.

Answer 5

He is depicted okay although the old quote describing
him actually says his hair was like lambswool and his skin dark. Which probably means he is black.....

However the figures that I see existing in church is more better in that I think he represents a Jew and I would imagine people from Jerusalem looking like that or darker.

What I do object is the representation of Jesus as blonde and blue eyed which makes me want to sick...
Its almost as bad as Joseph being portrayed as blonde and I think okay a resurrection maybe but biblical ?? no way?

Answer 6

This misconception of the appearence of Jesus as being a light-skinned Caucasian with long hair and beard came from the depictions of him in early paintings, when Christianity was first officially adopted by the Roman Empire.
In reality, he was middle eastern and, therefore, likely to have had dark skin. (Maybe the eye-patch is going a bit far, but he could certainly have carried a weapon of some kind.)

Answer 7

Who knows? To assuage the vanity of some white King? The truth is that he was likely Arab and wore a turban with a mound of grease under it to save his skin from burning constantly. He was born a Jew but was likely dark from carpentry and the sun he worked in. They were poor so his clothes were likely the duty robes of the day. I doubt he had a shaving kit and I imagine he had facial hair, as so many Jewish men do. I don't think he was a beautiful, white, shaved, beautifully dressed stud-muffin as the pics depict but rather a man who walked in the wind with ruffled hair unless he was traveling and needed the turban and it's grease core. His feet were often dirty because people washed his feet when he visited. Mary Magdalene used her hair to clean his feet! He likely had manly feet complete with tough skin to accomodate cheap leather sandals, instead of handsome boots or something. I imagine his hands were calloused from hard work, too. I was given a picture of the "white Christ" all shaved, brushed and him in a clean white robe. I love the picture as it was a gift but the best pic of him can be bought thru Berean. I call it "the laughing Jesus". He's bearded and his mussy hair is thrown back in the desert wind and he is laughing. I promised myself someday I would get a print of it. In the pic, he is darker and not light. There is NO Biblical evidence to support that he was a heralded white European so I don't know how that came about. Maybe someone had respect and wanted to depict him clean and shaven. Or it could have been to fool us all (an attempt) by a stupid ruler of the day. Have you ever seen any of the paintings of the Christ child and Mary? The baby is wearing serious finery as is Mary. Perhaps the painter wanted to honor the duo (or the painter was commanded by royalty to depict them tht way) but the truth is that they had nothing. They were simple people and Christ learned carpentry to help the family coffers. I imagine their life was quite simple and they wore very cheap, simple clothes made at home. I am sure they were as clean as possible but I know they didn't have Herod's attendants for laundry duty.

Answer 8

The physical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, though with no explicit emphasis on race, was also debated by theologians from early on in the history of Christianity. Different societies have depicted Jesus and most other biblical figures as their own ethnicity in their art, for example he is primarily white in the West, and black in Africa.

As for what he looked like no one is completely sure since we have no pictures and no who saw Jesus is alive now. I don't know why he would need an eye patch though, lol.

Answer 9

[Because white people can't identify with certain ethnic groups. For example - there are no famous British Asian actors (of Indian descent).]

Ben Kingsley? Parminder Nagra? Deepak Verma? Or Art Malik, even though he's of Pakistani descent? That enough for you?? Idiot.

I was always aware that Jesus would look more like one of my Jewish friends than he would me. It caused me no trauma. I just assumed that the painters of the fair skinned/blue eyed Jesus had never seen anyone different, and so they painted what they knew. They all look so different that it's obvious that none of them look like the real thing. So it never troubled me. Nor did seeing any of the famous black Madonnas. They're just objects d'art.

Early depictions of him are based on the ancient statues of Zeus from Olympia. Look at early Eastern Christian depictions of Jesus, and that's the face of Zeus you're seeing! Just like the Madonna and Child statues are presaged by, say, Isis nursing Horus.

Answer 10

He isn't
but the paintings or photo's etc.
were produced BY white Europeans.
Mostly Jesus is reproduced to look like the person who painted him.
Do more research, there are lots of depictions of Jesus some or merely a symbol!
Jesus was an Israeli so he probably looked Israeli.
PEACE!

Answer 11

I always thought of Jesus looking kind of like Cat Stevens. Sort of semi arab looking. But defintely not red headed with freckles. I can't go along with the eye-patch idea though. I think they poked Him in the side, not the eyeball eh?