I really have nothing against the portrayal of Jesus by a black actor. If this movie makes any claims to be historical at all, however -- enacting stories from the Bible, etc. -- it will probably be taken as reasonable history by those who learn history from Hollywood. That's too bad.
Jesus was not black. He was a Semite. That's a matter of historical recond, entirely apart from the Bible. And Semites are not Negroid.
So, of course, he wasn't white, either.
that is totally untrue. There are to this day depictions of the earliest hebrews who clearly show african facial festures. Ethiopians speak a semitic language and there are jews in Ethiopians who practice a form of Judiasim that is so ancient that many mordern day white jews have never heard of. If you look at the ancestors of Jesus there are people that have african name, and remember that the jews spent centuries in Egypt before Jesus was even born. So what ever they looked like before they have a mixture of african blood. If Moses can be the prince of Egypt didn't he have to look like them for people to believe that he was the son of pharaoh
shareI wish people here would stop dropping 19th century psuedoscientific racial catagorizations. Black and White are cultural creations, they dont really exist in any form of reality aside from this. For instance, where does black end and white begin? They are colours with no scientific backing, and to say that white is decended from Europe, Europe is a cultural creation too....it is an overemphasis on a tiny peninsula springing forth from Asia. Are the Berbers and Tuaregs black or white? would you consider the Khoisan or Polynesians to be black? whatabout American (North and South American, not just USA) people of african decent, who largely have copious amounts of European and Indeginous blood, are they truly black? Or Europeans, who have large amounts of Asian, Arabic, Persian, and Indeginous blood, are they truly white? No, No, and No....A person is only defined by colour if they are defined that way by society, these racial lines have no real signifigance in reality. The 19th century is over, leave its psuedosciences at the door.
Ha! Pseudoscience? Are you kidding me? Race is a biological reality. Anyone with fully functioning eyes can see this. Anyone with a fully functioning brain can comprehend this. Peoples own opinions of race may differ, but as far as genetic science is concerned, there is no confusion whatsoever. Caucasian/Caucasoid is not a racial classification exclusive to Europeans. The European continent just so happens to encompass the largest demographic of Caucasians. Historically, Caucasians have been and can still be found in many areas of the world that are not within the European borders; though it's rather obvious to see that these regions of the (Old) World only host Caucasian minorities among larger non-Caucasian/Mixed populations.
Skin color is but one, insignificant, factor of race. Phenotypes are another, more visible, physical characteristic. Physical anthropologists can detect more subtle racial distinctions such as, differing skull shapes/skeletal structures; differing dental structure, etc. Moreover, if racial/ethnic distinctions did not exist it would not be possible to pinpoint any racially exclusive traces in our own DNA.
The American created "Black" and "White" classifications are superficial and misleading. As are most politically correct racial classifications such as, African, European, Asian, etc. Its been established that continents like Africa, for example, have been host to Caucasians as well as Negroids.
I agree. The people who live in the area now were mixed with the Romans and Greeks who came in from the North. The people who lived there in biblical times would not look the same as those who are there now. They would have been more like the dark-skinned Egyptians you might see in Cairo nowadays. In America someone who looked like that would be considered 'black', regardless of the anthropological definitions of 'race'. Jews definitely have African blood in the mix from the time spent in Egypt.
sharewell, jesus was a semite so he was white but not european white, as many jews and arabs today, who can be white as a european (even blonde hair and blue eyes) and alomst as black as an african. There is a wide range to the race of the middle eastern people but through out history they were never considered black. The easiest way to see know jews looked like is just to read the bible and to see that the bible refer to blacks as different, (Moses and the black woman, Jeremiah and his black friend...). By the there are few people in the bible that are refered to as "red", which probably didn't meant they were red haired, but more likely they were white, with a pale skin, which seem like it's red (david is the most known of them).
by the way in Israel many arabs are as white as european, and many middle eatern jews (as myself) are white as europeans.
"European White" is, in essence, no different from Middle Eastern White if we are addressing specifics and particular Middle Eastern groups (of which most Arabs and Jews would be excluded). However, if one were to examine most of today's Middle Eastern regions he/she would find that the vast majority of these inhabitants have absorbed other ethnic elements (predominantly Asiatic, but occasional instances of Negro components). Now, the important argument to be made on this point is the fact that, in most instances, these frequencies of admixture are not significant enough to alter genetic components in degrees that would warrant these people to be generally classified as something other than Caucasoids.
The Middle East/North Africa of antiquity, on the other hand, shows us very different picture. Many can rightly argue that the Asiatic components were always there - as a part of the ethnic structure of many Arabs, Jews and other Middle Easterners, - but we can find that they were not to the degree we find them in today.
In the case of many of todays Jews and why they generally appear very little different than many Europeans, is fairly simple. At one point Jews and Arabs were essentially the same race (and I use the term subjectively), baring far more ethnic correlations than not. Once the Jews collectively made there way into Europe they absorbed many Europid ethnic elements which altered there appearance in various ways (some to degrees so significant that they could even resemble their hosts in Nordic countries). Though exceptions obviously exist. Jews like Jon Lovitz do seem to look more Arabic in appearance.
Arabs, on the other hand, largely remained in the Middle East (though many moving into other Middle Eastern & Northern African countries via conquest) and largely kept their original ethnic composition in tact, unlike their Jewish brothers. However, one very significant exception to this would be the Arab slave trade which introduced many Sub-Saharan Africans to Arabia and the Middle East. This would show to have an impact on part of the population. At a certain point, the offspring of Arab men and Negro women (though still being slaves) were then considered a free and equal part of the population. Thus assimilation and ultimately a racial impact on the ethnic composition of some Arabs/Middle Easterners.
So now, when we see Israelis and Arabs inhabiting the same area of land and wonder how they can appear so different to one another, we can know that certain events happened which took, ultimately the same ethnic group of people, in two different directions which showed to have very different physical impacts.
Do not fight with the devil, he will surely distract you.
"whatchu doing on our turf punk? Got a message for smoky"
That's a stupid statement, about Jesus being either "Semite" or "Negroid".
Ethiopians are traditionally viewed as "Semitic". Would you consider Ethiopians to be "Black"?
You do also realize that the terms "Semitic", "Negroid" and "Caucasian" involve outdated concepts devised by so-called scientists living almost 200 years ago, to try and prove that these "races" were actually separate species of humans, right?
You also know that, due to the recent mapping of the Human Genome, people that appear to be of completely separate races, who have absolutely no relation to each other, can actually have more genetic information in common that two people who are brothers?
Please, don't be stupid your whole life.
LoL why don't we have these race discussions when Max von Sydow, Jeremy Sisto or Jim Caviezel is playing Jesus? Oh that's right because they're white, lol.
shareThere are to this day depictions of the earliest hebrews who clearly show african facial festures.
Negroid
Did you ever wonder.
With all this arguing over his ethnicity. Maybe he was Scicilian.
Those guys can get as dark as oil. Then get as pale as an Irish guy. Not many races can get that done. At least naturally, like back in Jesus's day.
And it makes sense. The Petchnavante's and the Mafia being established prior to the invasion of Babylon. Come on.
Spaghetti is like, the best food in existence.
The Vatican is in Italy.
Constantine.
There was a definite Italian influence that supercedes all the other records. Plus most of the semites were called that instead of nomad.
The line to Jesus traces back to Aberham. But no one knows how Mary got pregnant. "The lord blessed her with a pregnancy, mystically". If you follow this movie, that's apparently a joke.
Joseph was aberhams race, Mary was too. So even if some black dude caused a miracle, Jesus wouldn't be that dark.
He'd be like, if he were a black guy, Barock. lol and he wasn't like Barock.