As promised in our last edition, this part IV will specifically focus on the historical process that
culminated in the metamorphosis of the original colour of Jesus Christ to the now most familiar images,that is, the white Jesus.
As could be gathered from our preceding discussions, the question of colour of Jesus Christ can be addressed from various angles, namely biblically, geographically,historically, genetically genealogically and of course, scientifically, as well!
We could see that the question has conclusively been answered in the last part especially from a biblical,geographical, genealogically and even partly from a scientific point of challenge that stands was posed to all the sceptics and disbelievers to put Revelation 1: 15 to an experimental test and publish the results. Fo repetition’s sake, the Biblical reference records John’s description of Jesus feet, saying:
“And his feet (were) like unto fine brass as if they were burned in a furnace.”
The conclusion that was drawn from this is that the colour of burned brass is black.
That is supposed to have settled the debate. Yet, there could be some people who may be interested in the history of the distortion of the correct image of Jesus Christ.
How and when did it start, who was responsible and can it be history? These are questions this part will address.
Firstly, it must also be asked as to which verses in the Bible clearly state, suggest, mean or even allude to the fact that Jesus Christ was a Caucasian white person.
In fact, it will be interesting to obtain references from anyone who has such information please send to the African Magazine, for publication.
This is meant for those out there who may still be thinking and believing that the African Magazine
is trying to change the colour of Jesus Christ, (purely because it is run by African people) At any rate, let us continue with the issues of addressing how mankind changed the images of Jesus to white.
In his Book, titled, “What colour was Jesus ?” Mosley William (1987), a former Afro-American Christian pastor traced the genesis and history of the white Jesus, which he located in a specific period in European history. Mosley believes that it was Europeans that did the historical colour changing. Genesis of Historical Distortions
According to Mosley, the problem simply started in the mind.It was all a psychologicaldisease, which can be called’Caucasoid prejudice’. This is a psychological disease observed in some people of Caucasian origin who suffer from a severe form of racism, another terrible psychosocial illness. The problem is primarily a colour prejudice. This colour prejudice was also particularly noticed in the early Christian church and that was what provided the impetus for a white Jesus. Generally, European Christians used to look down on people of other ‘colours’ i.e. non-whites European Artistic Impressions
Mosley contends that it was the psychology of racism that gave birth to a white Christ. The process from psychological images to physical pictures was facilitated by several European artists. The process simply started by painting Jesus Christ with European and typically Aryan features, such as long straight hair, thin lips, sharp long nose, blue eyes and white skin colour which then progressively became a perfect reflection of a pale white-skinned person. Then even Hollywood was never to experience any in the making the numerous movies about Jesus, now with clear and obvious white Jesus as the main character! That is how simple it was to change the man’s colour.
Many people do not know the difference between fact and fiction. The basic problem here is that the colour black was historically considered to be symbolic of evil and dark forces. It was believed that people of Hamitic origin were allegedly cursed by God, hence it was not possible to associate Jesus Christ with such a disreputable colour, in the eyes of the Roman Christians of the time. The unfortunate belief at that time was that Ham was cursed by Noah, and therefore God, with the consequence that the “curse” of the blackness of
with sin.
What is interesting to emphasise at this stage is that the Bible only records that it was Noah who
apparently cursed Ham one of his three sons, but not God! In fact, there seems to be confusion as to whether the curse was directed to Ham or Canaan, the son of Ham.
Even the word ‘curse’ itself is under scrutiny
here as to what form did the curse take. Was it some sort of a simple verbal insult directed to Ham or Canaan or was it a permanent and genetically transferable curse upon the Hamites or Canaanites?
The History of the artistically drawn white Jesus
Mosley further informs us that, in fact, it was in the 15th century at the emergence of the Slave Trade spearheaded by the Portuguese that racism also started to emerge in its most deadly theological, philosophical, socio-political and scientific forms.
As a matter of historical record, it was one of the Roman Catholic Popes who played a significant role in this tragic saga. Pope Julius II in 1505 commissioned the painting of certain biblical works from artist Michelangelo and in doing so initiated the concept of God (read Jesus) as being white! As one can notice by then and even now, it is not .. only Jesus who was being painted white but God the Creator Himself was being propagated to be white as well!
No doubt historically many black Africans started feeling inferior to white people as soon as they converted to Christianity. The infamous black inferiority complex!
Is the situation any different nowadays in Christianity?
The results were portraits and pictures distributed worldwide of a white Mary, mother of Jesus, whose prominent features were also distorted to resemble a Florentine Italian woman. Michelengelo was an Italian, of course!
Likewise, in the Michelangelo paintings, the images of Christ child, the three wise men, the Lord’s Supper and the Resurrection, were changed until no trace of their original Blackness remained, so laments Mosley. The same with most of the crucifixes.
Entire Nations changed
According to Mosley, not only were individuals changed but entire nations, peoples and tribes were changed, like the ancient Egyptians, the original Hebrews, Babylonians and many other non- Europeans races.
Hence, the features of many Biblical characters became like of those people of European and Caucasian origins.
Even Moses whose hand the Bible clearly records was miraculously changed by God to white and then back to its original colour is also painted as white!
This was essentially an anti-black campaign.. Here we have the birth of a socially manifested white supremacy, at last. Hence, the colour white became the colour representing of all that is good, pure and of course, divine! There you have it. Then everything black became associated with all sorts of negative symbols, images and thoughts, hence to be totally rejected and discriminated against. Ask many people about the colourof Jesus. It even became blasphemous to demand the right answer. Thus, the concept of a Jesus with features resembling non-whites became unimaginable, despite the fact that the Bible strongly suggests this.
Linguistic Suggestions
The other question relevant to this discussion is the mother tongue of Jesus. It is known that Jesus spoke a non-European language, namely Aramaic-Hebrew. How then did it come about that a person whose mother tongue was of non-Caucasian origin became to be associated with Caucasian origin and physical features in his appearance?
The change of the colour of Jesus Christ came to have very devastating effects on the psychological and theological functioning of people of African descent.
It is expected that this discovery must be both psycho-therapeutic and traumatic at the same time for both black and white people alike, simply because the promotion of thewhite Jesus-God has been going for far too long. This has also historically been implicated in the ugly phenomena of racism, colonialism, imperialism and bigotry.
It must be understood that when it is argued and concluded that Jesus was black, it is not wished that,”would it not be nice if Jesus were to be black or let us pretend that Jesus was black. No! the Gospel Truth is that there never was a white Jesus, period!
The Scientific Verdict
According to an article published in Popular Mechanics magazine of January 2003, advances in forensic science has come to reveal the most famous face in history. The heading of the article was simply titled, ‘The real faceof Jesus’ and on the opposite side of the page is the black-faced and bearded image. The article shows convincingly that the images that Christians have been showing the whole world is “flawed”.
Accordingto Mike Fillon, the author of the article, the picture that many people are made to believe to be that of Jesus is not consistent with the images that would be associated with the indigenous people of Palestine; thus the dominant Western imagery of Christ can be seen to be patently wrong.
What have come to also address the question are the results from Forensic Science, Anthropology,
Genetics, Archaeology, Palaeanthropology, Osteology (study of skeleton) and Computer Science. Guess who has given us the correct and accurate picture of the real Jesus? The article says that it is British scientists and Israeli archaeologists!
A certain forensic anthropologist and medical artists from the University of Manchester in England, Richard Neave, used computer models and modelling clay technique that enabled him to create a forensically acceptable facial reconstruction of Jesus.
Using Matthew’s Biblical description of the events of Gethsemane, he got his clues that he used to reconstruct the face of Jesus, by using what would be the typical features of a Galilean Semite of Jesus’ era. That is how the Israeli archaeologists came in, to provide the skull found from the time of Jesus. Three well-preserved skulls were used, provided by the Israeli achaeologists.
The results of Neave’s reconstructive efforts from his laboratory revealed a”swarthy Middle Eastern man”. The word swarthy means dark in complexion or as currently known, it means black!
The conclusion was that Jesus was a dark-skinned man. One significant reaction from a Christian theologian when he was presented with the scientific results, Charles D. Hackett, director of Episcopal studies at the Candler School of Theology in Atlanta USA, was this.
“The fact that he (Jesus) probably looked a great deal more like a dark skinned men than Westerners are used to seeing him pictured is a reminderof his universality…and it is also a reminder of our tendency to sinfully appropriate him in the service of cultural values”
That is it. Generally, people in most cultures of the world have tried to do just that, especially with regard to Jesus Christ, which in the process resulted in the distortion of his originality and humanity. This article is meant to put the record straight.By Francis S. Nyathi
Related posts:
- Think BEE, Think Black Money, Black Hands
- Oprah Winfrey The ‘Black Voice’ in a ‘White’ World
- Black Americans That Get It Wrong About Blacks on the African Continent
- 1.2 Lakh People Visit IITF On Sunday
- The Mystic Mission of Gaddafi is Raising My Eyebrows
Comments on this entry are closed.